/ d~o 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/highercatechismoOOpope 


A 


Higher  Catechism 

OF 

Theology. 


WILLIAM  BURT  POPE,  D.D., 

Thrologicai  Tutor*  Didsbury  College^  Manchester. 


NEW  YORK: 

PHILLIPS  & HUNT. 

CINCINNATI  : 
WALDEN  & STOWE. 

1 884> 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION. 


I. 

II. 

III. 


Theology  

Christian  Theology 

Theology  in  the  Church  . . . 

The  Science  of  Theology  . . • 

BOOK  I. 


PAGS 

I 

5 

7 

II 


THE  CHRISTIAN  REVELATION  AND  THE 
RULE  OF  FAITH. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Revelation  and  the  Christian  Faith 17 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  Credentials  or  Evidences  of  the  Christian  Revelation  26 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture.  49 

; CHAPTER  IV. 

Canon  of  Scripture 59 

. \ 

CHAPTER  V, 

The  Canon  as  Rule  of  Faith 64 

r 


Q 


Xm  ^ 


IV 


Contents 


BOOK  II. 
GOD. 

The  Triune  God  • . • 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  Attributes  of  God 

CHAPTER  II. 
CHAPTER  III. 

Historical  Theories  and  Discussions  85 

BOOK  III. 

GOD  AND  THE  CREATURE. 


Creation 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  Created  Universe  . 

CHAPTER  II. 

Providence  •••••• 

CHAPTER  III. 

Historical  Discussions  • 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Sin,  Guilt,  Punishment  . 

BOOK  IV. 

SIN. 

CHAPTER  I. 

• .115 

Original  Sin 

CHAPTER  II. 

Contents. 


V 


BOOK  V. 

THE  MEDIATORIAL  WORK  OF  THE 
REDEEMER. 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  Redeeming  Purpose  of  the  Triune  God  146 

CH  TE  II. 

The  Person  of  Christ 155 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Historical  Christ,  or  the  Process  of  the  Mediatorial 

Work 163 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Finished  Atonement 181 


BOOK  VI. 

THE  APPLICATION  OF  REDEMPTION. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Holy  Spirit  as  Administrator 196 

CHAPTER  II. 

Vocation,  or  the  Calling  of  the  Spirit 202 


CHAPTER  HI. 

Prevenient  Grace  and  the  Conditions  of  Salvation  ....  207 


CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Estate  of  Grace,  or  Personal  Salvation 222 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  Probation  of  the  Gospel • 276 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Christian  Morals;  or  the  Ethics  of  Redemption 292 

CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Christian  Church 322 


'dv  W-  . 


VI 


Contents 


BOOK  VII. 

THE  LAST  THINGS. 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  Intermediate  State . 360 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  Second  Coming  of  Christ:  Resurrection  and  Judgment  . 367 
CHAPTER  HI. 

The  Consummation,  or  End  of  all  Things  ••••«•••  386 


Introduction, 


I.  THEOLOGY, 
ir.  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


III.  THEOLOGY  IN  THE  CHURCH* 

IV.  THE  SCIENCE  OF  THEOLOGY. 


INTRODUCTION. 


1.  What  is  Christian  theology  ? 

The  science  of  God  and  Divine  things  or  religion,  as 
based  upon  the  revelation  made  to  mankind  in  Jesus  Christ 
and  systematised  within  the  Christian  Church. 

2.  What  is  embraced  by  this  definition? 

(1)  Generally,  the  entire  encyclopaedia  of  theological 
sciences,  or  the  whole  sum  of  the  literature  of  Christianity, 
is  comprehended  in  it. 

(2)  But  it  is  particularly  limited  to  that  which  treats  of 
the  faith,  practice,  and  worship  of  the  fellowship  founded  by 
our  Lord. 

3.  How  may  we  distribute  the  subject  by  way  of  intro- 

duction ? 

By  considering  the  main  principles  (i)  of  theology  and 
religion  ; (2)  of  Christian  theology  and  religion  as  such  ; and 

(3)  of  their  scientific  exposition  in  the  church. 

§ 1.  anii  IHeltgi'on. 

1.  What  is  theology  proper? 

The  doctrine  concerning  God.  Theology  is  from  the 
Greek  ; the  term  divinity,  from  the  Latin  (Divinus),  includes 
more  generally  all  Divine  things. 

2.  In  what  sense  does  this  word  embrace  all  ? 

Because  there  is  nothing  in  man’s  knowledge  concerning 
himself  or  the  universe  which  is  not  related  to  God  ; and, 
more  particularly,  because  God  is  the  great  and  leading  object 
in  every  department  of  theological  literature. 

1* 


4 


Introduction, 


3.  What  does  the  doctrine  concerning  God  presuppose  In 

man  ? 

A faculty  for  the  reception  of  that  knowledge  of  Himself 
which  God  imparts  ] or  the  capacity  of  religion. 

4.  What  is  religion  ? 

(i)  It  is  strictly  the  bond  (religere)  which,  in  the  very 
constitution  of  his  nature,  unites  man  to  God  : faith  that  He 
Heb  xi  6 consciousness  of  dependence  and  obligation. 

^ * (2)  More  widely,  it  is  the  form  in  which  the  religious 

sentiment  finds  expression  in  worship  and  duty  and  fellow- 
ship. 

6.  How  are  the  terms  religion  and  theology  connected? 

(i)  On  the  one  hand,  religion  is  wider  than  theology. 
The  former  is  the  posture  of  the  whole  man  towards  God  ; 
the  latter  has  to  do  with  the  inquiries  and  judgments  of  his 
mind  only.  (2)  On  the  other  hand,  theology  is  much  wdder 
than  religion  ; as  the  latter  word  refers  only  to  human  relations, 
while  the  former  ranges  over  the  relations  of  all  things  to  God. 
But  (3)  their  influence  on  each  other  is  important  : man’s 
religion  takes  its  character  from  his  theology,  and  the  converse 
is  also  true,  that  as  his  worship  is  his  creed  will  be. 

6.  What  is  implied  in  this  limitation  to  man? 

(1)  That  man  is  in  some  sense  the  central  object : the 
relation  of  all  other  beings  and  things  is  scantily  dealt  with, 
but  nothing  is  omitted  that  vitally  concerns  the  nature  and 
destiny  of  mankind. 

(2)  That  the  teaching  concerning  God  is  adapted  to 
human  faculties,  the  Divine  method  being,  as  it  is  called, 
anthropomorphic:  condescending  to  human  terms  of  speech. 

(3)  That,  therefore,  the  whole  study  of  theology  implies 
the  unspeakable  dignity  and  value  of  human  nature  in  the 
sight  of  God  who  created  man  in  His  own  image. 

7.  Is  anything  else  suggested  by  the  union  of  these  terms? 

(1)  That  God  is  the  sole  teacher  of  the  things  concerning 


Introduction. 


5 


Himself:  He  alone  who  gave  the  faculty  and  instinct  can 
respond  to  it. 

(2)  That  the  essence  of  theology  is  the  practical  know- 
ledge of  God,  as  revealed  in  His  Son  through  the  Spirit. 

(3)  That  the  study  can  be  successfully  carried  on  only  in 
the  spirit  of  reverence  and  devotion.  All  is  concerning  God, 
and  comes  from  God,  and  leads  to  God. 

8.  Where  do  we  look  for  the  supreme  evidence  that  God 
condescends  to  teach  man  both  his  theology  and  his 
religion  ? 

In  the  Incarnation  of  the  Eternal  Son,  Who  is  God 
teaching  man  his  religion  in  his  own  human  nature. 

§ 2.  Christian  STt^oIogp. 

1.  State  more  particularly  the  relation  of  theology  to  Jesus 

Christ. 

He  is  the  supreme  teacher  both  of  theology  and  of 
religion : they  are  united  in  Him. 

2.  In  what  sense  are  they  united  in  Him  ? 

He  has  revealed  God  in  His  own  person,  making  that 
revelation  the  centre  of  all  truth  ; and  He  has  founded  on  that 
revelation  the  Christian  religion,  which  meets  all  the  require 
ments  of  man^s  relations  to  his  Maker. 

3.  Was  there  no  religion  in  the  world  before  He  came  ? 

There  was  a natural  religion,  without  express  revelation  ; 
and  a revealed  religion  among  the  Jews  : both,  though  in  very 
different  senses,  preparing  for  the  supreme  and  final  Revealer. 

4.  What  is  the  relation  of  Christianity  to  natural  religion? 

(1)  The  best  theology  of  the  religion  of  nature  consisted 
of  unwritten  principles  of  truth  found  in  men  generally  : 
these  the  Saviour  appealed  to  and  confirmed. 

(2)  Perversions  of  these  principles  took  the  form  of 
mythology,  on  the  one  hand,  or  philosophy,  on  the  other ; the 
errors  of  these  Christianity  condemned  and  corrected. 


6 


Introduction. 


(3)  Its  religions  were  the  great  systems  of  worship  found 
throughout  the  world,  especially  in  the  East : these  the  religion 
of  Christ  came  to  supersede  and  abolish. 

6.  What  is  the  modern  Science  of  Religion  ? 

The  study  and  classification  of  the  various  developments 
of  the  religious  instinct  in  mankind,  conducted  without  re- 
ference to  supernatural  revelation. 

6.  What  is  the  relation  of  Christian  theology  to  this 

science? 

It  uses  the  materials  of  that  science  for  its  own  purpose : 
to  show  the  world’s  need  of  one  absolute  religion.  But,  while 
the  science  of  religion  begins  with  man  and  makes  Christianity 
only  one  form  of  the  religious  instinct,  Christian  theology 
begins  with  God  who  gives  one  great  revelation  through  His 
Son  : all  other  manifestations  of  truth  being  indirectly  His. 

7.  How  is  Christian  theology  related  to  Jewish  ? 

Old-Testament  theology,  Patriarchal,  Mosaic  and  Pro- 
phetical, was  fulfilled  and  consummated  by  the  teaching  of 
Christ.  Its  perversions  in  Rabbi nism  or  Talmudism  are,  like 
the  perversions  of  natural  religion,  condemned. 

8.  Where  are  the  elements  of  this  theology  deposited  ? 

In  the  New-Testament  Scriptures,  which  are  the  records 
of  the  establishment  of  the  Christian  religion  and  the  docu- 
ments of  the  Christian  faith. 

9.  How  is  Christian  theology  connected  with  these  elements  ? 

All  first  principles  are  intended  for  application  to  life  ; 
and  the  Founder  of  Christianity  has  left  the  principles  of  His 
theology  to  be  expanded  with  the  growth  of  His  religion  and 
thus  to  find  its  large  development  : in  other  words,  to  be 
unfolded  in  the  congregation  of  His  people. 

10.  Meanwhile,  what  obligation  does  His  name  impress  ? 

That  the  study  of  theology,  in  its  whole  compass,  shall 
pay  its  tribute  to  the  dignity  and  authority  of  His  person. 


Introduction. 


7 


§ 3.  STfjeologp  in  tje  CJ)urci). 

1.  What  is  the  relation  of  theology  to  the  church  ? 

(1)  Generally,  it  is  the  whole  sum  of  the  literature  to 
which  Christianity  has  given  birth. 

(2)  Particularly,  it  is  the  formal  arrangement  of  the 
methods  by  which  the  churches  have  unfolded,  taught,  and 
defended  the  principles  of  the  Christian  faith. 

2.  What  does  this  presuppose  ? 

(1)  That  the  Scriptures  have  been  committed  by  our  Lord 
to  His  people  to  be  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice  for  ever. 

(2)  That  He  is  present  by  His  Spirit  and  watches  over 
the  gradual  developments  of  religious  teaching  and  knowledge. 

3.  Y.Tiat  have  been  the  forms  of  teaching  in  the  church? 

(1)  The  first,  and  most  universal,  is  the  unfolding  of 
Scripture  in  the  edification  cf  believers.  Hence  has  arisen 
practical  theology  : official  in  the  ministerial  office,  and  more 
general  in  all  devout  religious  literature. 

(2)  Catechetical  instruction  by  catechists  : preparing 

catechumens  for  baptism,  adults  before  and  children  after. 
Hence  the  universal  theology  of  the  catechism. 

(3)  The  definitions  of  the  faith  as  against  heresy  and  stated 
in  dogmas,  or  authoritative  decisions  on  doctrine.  Hence,  in 
its  strict  meaning,  dogmatic  theology  : the  exposition  of  creeds 
and  confessions  of  faith. 

(4)  The  defence  of  the  faith  against  assault  has  given  rise 
to  apologetic  theology  : Polemics,  as  conducted  within  the 
church  ; and  Apology  or  Evidences,  as  directed  against  external 
foes.  This  has  been  a fruitful  branch  of  Christian  literature. 

4.  What  is  the  difference  between  creeds  and  confessions  ? 

Generally  speaking,  the  creeds  were  the  authoritative 
statements  of  the  faith  in  the  ancient  and  undivided  church  ; 
the  confessions,  or  standards,  or  articles,  or  formularies,  are 
those  of  the  divided  church  in  its  individual  communities. 


8 


Introduction. 


6.  Which  were  the  ancient  creeds? 

(i)  The  Apostles^:  a gradual  expansion  of  the  baptismal 
formula.  (2)  The  Nicene  : the  same,  with  a clearer  definition 
of  the  Eternal  Sonship.  (3)  The  Athanasian  : distinguished  by 
a fuller  exposition  of  the  Trinity  and  the  Incarnation. 

6.  What  was  the  theology  of  the  interval  between  the  creeds 

and  confessions? 

It  may  be  termed  Mediaeval.  During  the  middle  ages, 
darkness  and  light  struggled  together.  In  the  East,  theology 
was  comparatively  stagnant  ; in  the  West,  it  was  actively 
studied  in  the  Schools  or  Universities  of  Europe,  whence  the 
term  Scholastic  theology.  This  took  two  forms  : one  develop- 
ing the  principles  which  were  afterwards  consolidated  in  the 
final  form  of  Roman  Catholicism  ; the  other  more  evangelically 
mystical,  and  in  many  ways  preparing  for  the  Reformation. 

7.  What  may  be  called  confessional  theology? 

That  which  represents  the  several  views  of  Christian  faith 
held  by  the  divisions  of  Christendom  since  the  sixteenth 
century  : the  dogmatic  and  polemical  testimony  and  teaching 
of  each  communion,  viewed  in  its  relation  to  the  others, 

8.  Name  the  principal  branches  of  this. 

(1)  Protestant  theology,  in  general,  is  the  teaching  of  all 
communions  that  separated  from  the  pontifical  unity  of  the 
Western  Church.  This  was  opposed  to  Roman  Catholicisna, 
which,  as  Tridentine,  was  itself  a protest  against  Protestantism. 

(2)  Lutheran  or  Evangelical,  and  Reformed  or  Calvinistic, 
were  the  two  main  forms  of  European  Protestantism  : the 
former  being  more  sacramental  in  its  tendency,  the  latter  more 
predestinarian,  but  botn  fundamentally  the  same. 

(3)  Arminian  or  Remonstrant  theology  sprang  up  in 
Holland  as  a protest  against  Predestinarianism. 

(4)  Socinian  teaching  had  its  seat  in  Poland:  based  on  an 
unscriptural  protest  against  the  distinction  of  Persons  in  the 
Godhead,  and  gradually  descending  to  modern  Unitarianism. 


Introduction. 


9 


9.  Why  is  confessional  theology  sometimes  called  symbolical  ? 

From  the  term  (rvfxpoXov^  symbol,  the  technical  term  foi 
a creed  or  formulary  of  confession. 

10.  Which  are  the  leading  symbols  or  formularies  of  faith? 

After  the  Reformation,  and  as  the  result  of  it,  the  lead- 
ing communions  put  forth  a succession  of  formularies  and 
catechisms. 

(1)  Lutheranism  had  its  chief  standard  in  the  Augsburg 
Confession  (i  530)  and  the  Catechism  of  Luther,  followed  nearly 
fifty  years  after  by  the  Formula  Concordiae. 

(2)  The  Reformed  or  Calvinistic  churches  set  out  with 
the  Helvetic  Confession  (1564)  and  the  Heidelberg  Catechism 
(1563)  ; followed  by  others  in  France  and  Belgium  and  else- 
where. Presbyterianism,  as  a branch  of  the  Reformed,  issued 
the  Westminster  Confession,  which,  with  its  modification  in 
the  Savoy  Confession  and  others,  remains  still  in  some  sense 
the  recognised  standard  of  the  Presbyterian  and  Congrega- 
tional bodies  in  England  and  America. 

(3)  Anglicanism  had  its  main  standard  in  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles  ; combining  the  chief  elements  of  the  two  former. 

(4)  Arminianism,  which  sprang  up  in  Holland  as  a protest 
against  Calvinism,  issued  a Remonstrant  Confession  (1620), 
specially  in  Five  Articles  of  difference  ; this,  however,  is  not  a 
living  formulary,  nor  is  Arminianism  a distinct  body. 

(5)  The  Society  of  Friends  acknowledges  no  human 
standard ; but  Barclay's  Apology  is  of  the  nature  of  a con- 
fession of  faith. 

(6)  Methodism  has  issued  no  formal  and  general  confession. 
It  holds  for  the  most  part  the  three  creeds,  and  the  doctrinal 
formulary  of  the  English  Church  ; but  its  standards  are  found 
more  particularly  in  certain  writings  of  the  Founder  of  the 
Society.  American  Methodism  aims  at  a more  distinct  con- 
fession. 

(7)  The  old  Socinian  system  has  also  lost  its  hold  : modern 
Unitarianism  having  taken  its  place  ; but  with  a very  much 
lower  teaching  as  tu  the  person  of  Christ,  His  communion  with 
the  Father  in  heaven,  and  His  lordship  over  all. 

(8)  The  old  communions  of  East  and  West  had  also  their 


lO 


Introduction. 


new  confessions : the  Tridentine  decrees  and  the  Catechism  of 
Pius  V.  were  the  definitive  doctrine  of  Rome,  supplemented  in 
the  present  age  by  the  Vatican  decisions  of  1854  1870  ; 

the  Greek  Church  has  held  to  the  first  creeds,  but  with  several 
modern  confessions  added. 

11 . Is  a Catholic  theology  to  be  traced  through  all  these  ? 

From  the  time  that  the  Christian  church  began  the  de- 
velopment of  scriptural  teaching  there  has  been  an  unfailing 
witness  to  the  fundamental  verities  of  the  gospel  : a catholic 
theology,  in  the  truest  sense,  which  no  errors  in  any  com- 
munity or  in  the  darkest  age  have  entirely  concealed. 

12.  What  is  meant  here  by  development  ? 

Development  has  two  ideas  in  it  : the  laying  open  what 
is  already  behind,  and  the  letting  a germ  grow  which  was 
waiting  for  its  time.  In  both  senses  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  been  developed  in  the  dogmatic  teaching  of  the 
churches  : the  latter  however  not  without  peril. 

13.  How  then  are  doctrine  and  dogma  related  ? 

Strictly  speaking,  doctrine  is  only  of  God  and  dogma  is 
the  fixed  opinion  of  man.  But  in  general  usage  doctrine  is  the 
current  of  teaching  and  dogma  the  established  expression  of 
it  in  formulas  ecclesiastical. 

14.  What  general  principles  have  guided  the  development, 

as  thus  defined  ? 

Certain  marked  tendencies  are  discernible  in  the  history 
of  the  church. 

(1)  Patristic  theology  (down  to  a.d.  600)  was  divided  into 
two  branches  : one  more  faithful  to  the  letter  of  Scripture,  and 
another  more  philosophical,  mystical,  and  speculative.  These 
two  have  been  more  or  less  permanent  down  to  the  present. 

(2)  A tendenc}^  to  corrupt  the  simplicity  of  the  faith  in 
the  interest  of  a false  theory  of  the  unity  of  the  church,  joined 
to  the  notion  of  an  infallible  traditional  interpretation,  has 


Introduction. 


II 


moulded  the  development  of  the  greater  mass  of  Christian 
theology:  the  influence  that  has  reigned  most  extensively. 

(3)  A mystical  tendency  has  illumined  theology  from  the 
beginning  : partly  with  a false,  and  partly  with  a true,  light. 
This  has  not  been  limited  to  any  one  section,  nor  has  it  been 
excluded  from  any.  No  element  has  been  more  pervasive. 

(4)  The  Latitudinarian  or  Eclectic  spirit  has  affected  theo- 
logical teaching,  especially  in  the  earlier  and  the  later  periods 
of  the  history  of  Christianity.  Its  principle  is  indifference  to 
dogmatic  statements  or  decisions. 

(5)  Rationalism  in  all  ages,  but  especially  in  the  last, 
has  played  its  part.  Its  spirit  is  jealous  distrust  of  pure  faith 
and  undue  homage  to  pure  reason  in  the  acceptance  of  all 
the  truths  professedly  revealed. 

15.  What  may  be  hoped  for  the  future? 

That  all  communions  will  be  brought  nearer  and  nearer 
to  the  unity  of  the  faith : of  which  there  are  not 
wanting  many  signs.  It  is  the  duty  of  every  theo- 
logian  to  help  forward  this. 

16.  Meanwhile  what  is  the  duty  of  the  student  ? 

To  study  theology  historically  as  represented  by  all  com- 
munions : for  without  this  he  cannot  make  sure  advancement 
towards  that  catholic  unity.  But,  at  the  same  time,  to  hold 
fast  the  confession  which  he  believes  that  Providence  has 
given  him,  and  with  humble  confidence  to  study  the  whole 
round  of  theology  by  its  light.  In  all  and  above  all,  he  must 
make  the  Scriptures  his  principle,  his  guide,  and  his  final  appeal. 

§ 4.  Science  of  2Tl)eologp. 

1.  What  claim  has  theology  to  be  called  a science  ? 

Science  is  the  logical  arrangement  of  certified  truth  ; and 
by  every  test  theology  makes  good  its  claim  to  be  this. 

2.  In  what  sense  is  it  certified  truth  ? 

Truth  theological  is  the  conformity  of  our  knowledge  with 
the  realities  of  God  and  the  invisible  world.  Its  certitude  is 


12 


Introduction. 


the  faith  that  receives  and  trusts  in  the  witness  given  to 
these  by  God  Himself. 

3.  But  is  not  the  certitude  of  science  as  such  determined 

by  reason? 

In  laying  the  foundations  of  all  science  reason  is  or  must 
become  faith  : the  primary  principles  of  knowledge  are  in- 
destructible beliefs  ; which  are  certitudes,  though  not  demon- 
strable by  reason  as  distinguished  from  faith. 

4.  What  is  the  theological  relation  of  reason  and  faith? 

While  philosophy  merges  faith  into  reason,  theology  keeps 
them  distinct : faith  is  the  proof  of  things  not  seen  ; reason 
accepts  the  proof,  and  logically  forms  all  the  materials  of  this 
knowledge  into  ordered  and  systematic  science. 

6.  Where  are  the  materials  of  this  science  gathered? 

In  every  region : in  the  consciousness  of  man  ; in  the 
external  universe  ; in  the  books  of  revelation  ; in  the  common 
experiences  of  mankind. 

6.  Does  not  this  make  theology  a universal  science  ? 

Such  it  is,  in  a sense  appropriate  to  no  other.  But  in 
theology  the  science  is  subordinate  to  the  practical  art  : all 
true  science  has  its  application  to  human  interests,  but  this 
holds  good  especially  of  theology  in  relation  to  ethics. 

7.  What  is  its  specific  relation  to  other  sciences? 

The  sciences  of  being  and  knowing,  Ontology,  Meta- 
physics and  Philosophy  proper,  are  all  really  occupied  with 
one  branch  of  theology  : God  and  the  relation  of  the  universe 
to  Him.  Psychology,  with  all  the  inquiries  that  deal  with  man 
as  soul  and  body,  cannot  be  truly  studied  apart  from  our 
science.  The  Physical  sciences,  as  such,  are  less  directly  con- 
nected with  it  ; but  their  value  as  the  study  of  phenomena 
and  laws  is  to  be  estimated  by  the  tribute  they  pay  or  fail  to 
pay  to  the  Supreme  Author  of  the  universe  and  its  laws. 


Introduction. 


13 


8.  How  do  we  understand  tlie  logical  order  of  our  science  ? 

(1)  Theology  uses  the  rules  by  which  facts  are  made 
science  : induction,  the  reasoning  process  that  gathers  up 
particulars  into  generals  ; and  deduction,  that  carries  a general 
truth  into  its  many  applications.  By  the  former,  generally 
speaking,  the  definitions  of  theological  dogma  are  reached  ; 
the  latter  more  particularly  governs  theological  ethics. 

(2)  The  result  is  systematic  theology,  which  is  the  orderly 
presentation  of  the  entire  subject  in  all  its  branches,  with  the 
relation  of  these  branches  to  each  other, 

9.  What  are  the  branches  of  systematic  theology? 

They  are  mainly  three  : 

(1)  Biblical  theology,  which  investigates  and  defends  the 
Scriptures,  and  exhibits  their  various  teachings  systematically. 

(2)  Historical,  which  connects  theology  with  its  develop- 
ments in  ecclesiastical  usages  and  controversies. 

(3)  Dogmatic,  which  analyses  and  combines  the  result  in 
formal  doctrine  regarded  as  authoritative. 

10.  How  do  these  enter  into  a course  of  theological  study  ? 

They  may  be  regarded  as  entirely  distinct,  and  presented 
accordingly.  Or  they  may  be  taken  coordinately ; the  scrip- 
tural principles  of  doctrine  may  be  laid  down,  then  the  his- 
torical controversies  concerning  it,  and  the  dogmatic  state- 
ment as  finally  accepted.  But  the  simpler  method,  followed 
in  this  course,  is  to  combine  the  biblical  and  dogmatic  ; adding, 
where  necessary,  an  historical  review. 

11.  What  principles  generally  govern  the  order  ? 

Sometimes  the  Articles  of  the  Creed,  sometimes  points  in 
a Confession,  are  made  the  foundation  of  a system  : but  this 
tends  to  a contracted  scheme.  Or  the  whole  course  may  be 
divided  into  the  evidences,  doctrines,  morals,  and  institutions 
of  Christianity  : with  this  disadvantage,  however,  that  the  last 
two  are  apt  to  be  severed  from  the  second.  Our  method  will 
gather  the  whole  into  unity,  by  taking;  (i)  Revelation,  the 


14 


Introduction. 


Scriptures,  and  the  Rule  of  Faith  ; (2)  the  Doctrine  of  God  ; 

(3)  the  Creature,  Creation,  and  Providence  ; (4)  Sin  ; (5)  the 
Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer  ; (6)  its  Administration  by 
the  Spirit  in  the  Church  of  Christ ; and  (7)  the  Last  Things. 

12.  Finally,  tinder  what  rules  and  safeguards  must  theo- 
logical study  be  conducted  ? 

It  must  always  be  remembered  : 

(1)  That  accurate  system  is  here  of  great  importance  : the 
student  has  a great  advantage  who  always  surveys  the  bearings 
and  connections  of  his  subject  ; and  no  outcries  against  dogma, 
from  any  quarter,  should  be  listened  to  for  a moment. 

(2)  That  the  terms  of  theology,  conventionally  established, 
should  be  fixed  and  held  sacred  in  their  meaning  : for  instance, 
such  words  as  inspiration,  substance,  person,  must  have  and 
should  always  retain  their  own  sense  in  this  science. 

(3)  That  mysteries  are  to  be  expected,  accepted  and 
gloried  in  : all  revelation  unfolds  a mystery,  in  the  theological 
sense  of  a secret  revealed  ; and  every  doctrine  is  surrounded  by 
mystery  in  the  more  common  meaning  of  the  word, 

(4)  That  the  unity  of  the  whole  is  the  presence  of  the 
Word  in  the  word  : the  Scriptures  being  the  supreme  guide. 

(5)  That  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Sole  Interpreter  ; and  that 
He  will  guide  those  who  submit  to  be  led  by  Him  into  the 
Col  ii.2.  FULL  ASSURANCE  OF  UNDERSTANDING, 


BOOK  I 


The  Christian  Revelation  and  the 
Rule  of  Faith. 


I.  REVELATION  AND  THE  CHRISTIAN  FAITH. 

II.  THE  CREDENTIALS  OR  EVIDENCES  OF 
REVELATION. 

III.  THE  SCRIPTURES  OF  INSPIRATION. 

IV.  THE  CANON  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

V.  THE  DIVINE  RULE  OF  FAITH, 


BOOK  I. 

g^rtsftatt  '^eeelcition  an5  llye  '^ulc  of 

iSrflitm'narp. 

1.  On  what  grounds  do  we  begin  thus  ? 

(i)  All  the  topics  of  theology  presuppose  a revelation 
of  God  to  man,  which  we  hold  to  have  been  perfected  in 
Christianity  ; (2)  this  is  witnessed  by  its  credentials  for  faith, 
and  its  evidences  to  reason  ; (3)  Christianity  itself  is  to  us 
based  upon  its  inspired  documents  ; (4)  these  are  contained  in 
the  canonical  Scriptures ; and  (5)  therefore  the  canon  of 
Scripture  is  to  us  the  Divine  Rule  of  Faith. 

2.  State  this  in  one  definition. 

Christianity  is  the  supreme  revelation,  infallible  in  its 
credentials,  bound  up  with  written  documents  which  are  to  the 
Christian  Church  the  canonical  and  Divine  rule  of  faith. 


Chapter  I. 

■^ctjclafion  an6  g^risUan 

§ 1.  iJlebelatCoit. 

1.  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  word^n  Scripture? 

It  is  expressed  generally  by  two  leading  terms  : d7ro#caXvi^t5, 
which  is  the  Divine  unfolding  of  what  lay  hid  ; and  </>av€po)o'ts, 
which  is  the  manifestation  to  human  knowledge. 

2.  Are  those  terms  used  with  different  applications  ? 

(i)  The  latter,  manifestation,  is  so  applied  as  to  cover  all 
revelation : that  which  is  natural  and  that  which  is  super- 
natural. (2)  The  former,  revelation  proper,  will  be  found, 
when  examined,  to  be  used  only  of  the  supernatural  order. 


1 8 Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


3.  How  is  the  distinction  of  natural  and  supernatural 

established  ? 

(1)  We  read  every wliere  in  Scripture  of  a universal 
re\'elation  in  nature.  That  which  may  be  known  of  God  is 
Rom.  i.  19,  manifest^  and  in  the  framework  of  the  universe  the 

20-  invisible  things  of  Him  since  the  creation  of  the 

world  are  clearly  seen  : His  everlasting  power  is  as  it  were 
perceived^  and  His  Divinity  inferred  as  behind  it. 

(2)  But  in  connection  with  this,  we  read  also  of  a special 
revelation  over  and  above  that  which  is  general  : a light 
iTim.iii.i6,  shining  above  the  light  of  the  sun  in  nature,  in  Him 
Rom.xvi.25.  Who  was  manifested  in  the  fleshy  and  which  also  is 
clearly  seen  according  to  the  revelation  of  the  mystery. 

4.  What  is  the  relation  between  the  two? 

(1)  The  former,  or  natural  revelation,  is  the  ground  of 
the  latter:  first  the  Son  lighteth  every  man;  and  then,  as 

coming  into  the  worlds  He  specially  unveils  the 
John  1. 9.  Godhead  to  whomsoever  He  willeth  to  reveal  Him, 

(2)  Its  deficiencies  also  are  the  reason  for  it.  The  world 
Matt  xi  2 through  its  wisdom  knew  not  God ; and  then  it  was 
I Cor.  i.’2i.  His  will  to  send  the  Redeemer  Who  was  made  unto 

us  wisdom  f'om  God. 

6.  Why  do  we  limit  the  term  revelation  to  the  supernatural  ? 

(1)  Because  in  Scripture  it  is  always  so  limited.  Every 
use  of  the  term  Apocalypse  points  to  the  higher  manifesta- 
tions. Even  those  applications  which  seem  to  be  less 
Gal. ii.2.  important  have  to  do  with  redemption:  such  as  / 
Gal.  i.  16.  went  up  by  revelation  which  has  some  connection 
with  the  pleasure  of  God  to  reveal  His  Son  in  the  Apostle. 

(2)  Because  the  objects  or  subjects  of  this  revelation  are 
of  so  transcendent  a nature  that  we  appropriate  the  word  to 
them  : when  the  sun  is  risen  there  can  be  no  #ther  light 

6.  Thus  limited,  then,  what  further  distinction  must  we 

necessarily  make? 

Supernatural  revelation  is  either  objective,  what  is  revealed 
TO  the  receiver ; or  subjective,  how  it  is  revealed  in  man. 


Revelation  and  the  Christian  Faith. 


i9 


7.  Wliat  are  the  main  objects  of  this  revelation  ? 

(1)  Supremely,  the  being  of  God  and  man’s  true  relations 
to  Him  : the  Divinity  manifest  in  nature  becomes  the  Father 
and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

(2)  The  great  mystery  of  Christ  and  human  redemption  : 

the  secret  kept  in  silence  through  times  eternal.  Rom.  xvi. 

(3)  The  nature  of  religion  and  its  eternal  issues. 

8.  What  is  revelation  as  in  man  or  subjective? 

(1)  It  is  direct  or  immediate  : as  to  the  sacred  organs  of 
the  heavenly  communications.  And  to  them  direct,  in  external 
or  internal  visions,  by  the  Voice  from  heaven,  and  in  secret 
suggestions  of  the  Divine  Mind  to  the  human. 

(2)  It  is  mediate  : through  those  who  received  it  from 
God  to  those  who  receive  it  at  their  hands. 

(3)  It  is  also,  combining  these,  once  more  direct  to  those 
who  embrace  their  testimony,  through  an  internal  and  imme- 
diate revelation  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

9.  Then,  in  every  sense,  revelation  is  one  and  Divine? 

(1)  It  is  Divine:  for  man  cannot  originate  truth,  or  the 
knowledge  of  anything  external,  in  his  own  mind. 

(2)  It  is  one  : for  the  great  outline  and  every  subordinate 
detail  of  revelation  point  to  the  supreme  revelation  in  Christ. 

(3)  Hence  we  understand  what  is  meant  by  Divine  Reve- 
lation absolutely  ; and  that  as  consummated  in  the  Christian 
faith,  to  which  we  now  turn. 

§ 2.  iSlrbelation  m Cfirist,  or  tlje  ©Ijristian  jFaitl). 

1.  What  is  the  relation  of  these  phrases? 

The  sum  of  all  revelation  is  really  the  mystery  ot  Christ, 
of  God  manifested  in  His  Son,  who  is  Himself  the  revelation 
and  the  revealer  of  it. 

2.  Explain  these  two  more  particularly. 

(i)  In  His  person,  God  and  Man,  Christ  is  the  sum  and 
substance  of  all  revelation  : the  Truth.  johnxiv.  6. 

2 


20  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Ride  of  Faith. 


(2)  In  His  teaching,  our  Lord  gives  us  all  truth  : making 
all  former  and  lower  revelations  His  own  by  taking  them  up 
into  His  personal  communications,  and  by  adding  all  that  is 
necessary  for  man  as  a probationary  creature. 

3.  But  is  not  the  Christian  revelation  more  properly  a 

■branch  of  general  revelation  ? 

There  have  been  many  revelations,  but  to  us  there  is  only 
one.  Divine  revelation  is  no  other  than  Christianity  or  the 
Christian  Faith. 

4.  What  is  the  precise  force  of  this  last  phrase? 

It  signifies  that  the  teaching  of  Christ  is  made  up  of 
things  most  sm'ely  believed  by  Christians,  or  fully  established ; 
L k i I ^ Christian  philosophy,  which  may  be 

^ ^ the  ground  of  speculation  ; nor  a mere  historical 

record  of  events. 

5.  But  surely  it  is  accepted  as  a historical  record  ? 

It  is  so  : but  that  does  not  fully  explain  the  Christian 
Faith,  in  the  fulness  of  the  meaning  of  that  word. 

6.  What  then  is  the  faith  to  which  this  revelation  in 

Christ  is  addressed? 

It  is  threefold  : the  principle  or  faculty  in  human  nature 
which  apprehends  the  invisible  ; that  which  receives  facts  on 
adequate  testimony  ; and  finally  that  which  appropriates  and 
trusts  in  the  object  revealed.  These  in  their  unity  are 
appealed  to  by  Christian  revelation  and  accept  it. 

7.  But  may  not  the  last  of  these  he  wanting  in  an  accept- 

ance of  Christianity? 

This  is  a difficult  question : as  the  revelation  of  nature 
was  held  in  unrighteousness,  so  also  may  supernatural  revela- 
tion. But  the  question  may  be  answered  by  a distinction 
between  the  Christian  faith  as  objective  and  as  subjective. 

8.  Illustrate  that  distinction. 

(i)  Sometimes  in  the  New  Testament  we  read  of  tJie 


Revelation  and  the  Christian  Faith, 


21 


faith  which  was  once  for  all  delivered  unto  the  saints  : this 
may  be  accepted  and  even  be  hereditarily  transmitted.  Jude  3. 

(2)  But  generally  the  faith  is  regarded  as  an  internal 
principle  in  virtue  of  which  the  believer  says  Jesics 

T ^ j 1 Cor.  xii.  3. 

IS  Lord.  ^ 

(3)  The  union  of  these  is  a perfect  acceptance  of  Divine 
revelation.  The  truth  becomes  Yoiir  most  holy 
faith. 

§ 3.  i^lrbrlation  anb  tlje  53ible. 


Jude  20. 


1.  What  is  meant  by  combining  these  terms  ? 

That  all  revelation,  in  its  highest  sense,  is  contained  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  therefore  have  been  generally  and 
rightly  spoken  of  by  metonymy  as  a Divine  revelation. 

2.  Does  this  imply  that  every  part  of  the  Bible  is  imme- 

diate and  proper  revelation  ? 

By  no  means  : the  greater  part  is  not  of  that  character. 
But  there  is  no  part  of  it  which  is  not  directly  or  indirectly 
connected  with  one  great  historical  scheme. 


3.  What  is  meant  by  Historical  Revelation? 

This  expression  unites  revelation  with  Christ,  and  indicates 
the  progress  of  truth  toward  Him  its  End  ; it  also  includes  the 
methods  by  which  revelation  has  been  made  permanent  in 
documents  and  in  institutions. 


4.  As  applied  to  the  documents,  what  is  the  difference 
between  revelation  and  inspiration? 

(i)  In  its  highest  department  revelation  coincides  with 
inspiration  ; (2)  but,  generally,  revelation  is  the  result  as  a 
whole,  inspiration  the  means ; and  (3)  inspiration  is  con- 
ventionally used  to  signify  the  Spirit’s  agency  in  providing 
for  the  permanence  of  revelation  in  Holy  Scripture. 

§ 4.  5^i0toncal. 

1.  What  controversies  have  arisen  on  these  subjects  ? 

Three  classes  : (1)  as  to  the  possibility  of  any  revelation  ; 
(2)  as  to  the  necessity  of  a supernatural  revelation  ; and  (3), 


22  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


granting  such  a revelation,  the  relation  of  reason  to  faith  as  it 
respects  its  acceptance. 

2.  Who  represent  the  first  class? 

Only  the  Atheist  and  the  Pantheist  and  the  Materialist. 
If  there  is  a God,  personal  and  distinct  from  man,  then  the  very 
acceptance  of  this  truth  means  revelation  : for  it  is  an  idea 
given  to  the  mind,  whether  as  innate  or  as  subsequently  im- 
parted. And  that  again  renders  all  further  revelation  possible. 

3.  But  if  it  is  said  that  there  can  be  no  distinction  between 

the  mind’s  consciousness  and  revelation  from  without  ? 

Then  we  must  reply  that  the  very  consciousness  is  a 
revelation  from  without  : there  is  no  knowledge  of  things  seen 
but  through  Him  who  is  the  light  of  the  world. 
Jo  nix. 5.  same  is  true  of  things  not  seen.  But  it  is 

enough  to  say  that  as  man,  the  image  of  God,  can  act  upon 
the  mind  of  his  fellow,  the  infinite  Mind  can  act  upon  all  as 
He  will. 

4.  Who  represent  the  second  class? 

Those  who  admit  that  all  religion  is  taught  of  God,  but 
think  that  it  is  taught  only  and  sufficiently  by  the  light  of 
nature.  To  them  nature  is  not  the  corrected  but  the  corrector. 

6.  How  are  these  divided  amongst  themselves? 

They  have  the  common  name  of  Theists,  believers  in  God  : 
Deists  is  the  name  given  more  particularly  to  the  English 
advocates  of  the  religion  of  nature  in  the  last  century. 
Uniting  in  the  rejection  of  supernatural  revelation,  they  part 
in  two  lines  : those  who  respect  the  Scriptures  as  the  highest 
form  of  natural  religion,  and  those  who  reject  them  as  a corrup- 
tion of  that  natural  religion. 

6.  What  ground  do  the  former  take? 

They  regard  the  phenomena  of  the  religious  instinct  in 
mankind  as  an  object  of  science,  the  Science  of  Religion  or 
Comparative  Theology  ; and  classify  the  races  of  men  accord- 
ing to  their  religious  beliefs  and  practices.  Religions  have 


Revelation  and  the  Christian  Faith. 


23 


their  founders,  among  whom  Moses  is  first  and  Jesus  Christ 
the  last  but  one  ; their  sacred  books,  among  which  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  are  placed  as  in  a polyglot  ; and  their  various 
usages,  adapted  to  their  various  circumstances  and  characters. 

7.  What  is  our  argument  against  this  science? 

(1)  The  negative  one,  which  shows  by  a comparison  ot 
these  religions  with  that  of  the  Bible  that  a supernatural 
religion  was  necessary  for  their  correction. 

(2)  The  positive  one,  that  if  the  Revealer  is  the  Son  of 
God  there  can  be  but  one  religion,  absolute  and  eternal. 

8.  But  is  not  this  arguing  in  a circle? 

Yes:  on  our  part  as  on  theirs.  The  Theist  begs  the 
question  of  God’s  existence;  Christianity  begs  the  question  as 
to  its  Divine  Head  and  His  necessary  supremacy. 

9.  What  ground  do  the  latter  class  take? 

That  all  the  good  in  Biblical  revelation  is  only  a republi- 
cation of  the  religion  of  nature  ; that  what  it  brings  over  and 
above  is  to  be  rejected  of  human  reason. 

10.  How  is  this  to  be  met? 

(1)  By  admitting  that  supernatural  revelation  is  based 
on  the  natural,  confirms  all  its  great  principles,  and  honours 
it  throughout : reasserting  its  beliefs  and  in  its  own  terms. 

(2)  By  proving  from  its  own  records  and  history  that 
natural  religion  has  utterly  failed  in  the  first  obligations  of  all 
religion  ; and  has  nowhere  tended  to  improvement. 

(3)  By  urging  that,  a Ruler  of  the  universe  being  granted, 
it  might  be  expected  He  would  interpose  from  the  beginning 
to  correct  this  failure. 

(4)  By  showing  that  supernatural  religion  at  all  points 
professes  to  bring  that  correction  and  does  actually  bring  it  : 
as  will  be  seen  in  the  next  chapter. 

(5)  By  appealing  to  the  instincts  of  natural  religion  which 
in  its  sense  of  sin,  and  craving  after  propitiation,  and  philo- 


24  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


sophical  discipline  of  morals,  anticipated  the  very  answers 
which  the  New  Testament  gives. 

11.  Does  this  reasoning  exhaust  the  attack  of  natural  re- 

ligion and  our  defence  ? 

It  does  not  ; there  are  two  arguments  of  much  force  that 
it  uses  : one  is  derived  from  the  transcendent  nature  of  some 
of  the  new  truths  of  the  Bible  ; and  another  from  the  delay  of 
supernatural  religion  in  coming  and  the  slowness  of  its  diffu- 
sion after  having  come. 

12.  How  may  we  meet  these  two  grave  difficulties? 

The  former  belongs  to  the  credentials  of  Christianity,  and 
we  may  postpone  it  to  the  next  chapter:  premising  here  that 
the  religion  of  nature  has  accepted  wonder  piled  on  wonder, 
and  ought  not  after  its  experience  to  shrink  from  anything  not 
contradictory  to  reason. 

13.  But  as  to  the  slow  development  of  the  Divine  counsel 

in  supernatural  revelation  ? 

That  is  a deep  mystery : but  the  very  word  mystery, 
as  interpreted  by  evolution,  ought  to  plead  as  an  apology. 
Natural  religion  believes  in  a God  whom,  in  these  its  last  days 
at  least,  it  supposes  to  have  developed  His  plans  with  infinite 
patience  through  unlimited  ages.  Surely  it  cannot  consis- 
tently reject  supernatural  revelation  on  the  ground  of  its  being 
a secular  e\'olution  of  spiritual  forces  which  are  gradually 
suppressing  all  rivals,  and  showing  themselves  to  be  the  best 
by  surviving  all  others. 

14.  The  word  evolution  suggests  another  thought : may  not 

what  is  called  supernatural  revelation  he  a natural 
evolution  of  natural  religion  ? 

By  the  very  terms  natural  and  supernatural  are  as  distinct 
as  finite  and  infinite.  Moreover,  there  are  some  truths  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  Bible  which  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  their 
germs  in  natural  religion.  But,  finally  and  chiefly,  our  super- 
natural religion,  as  such,  stands  or  falls  with  its  claim  to 


Revelation  and  the  Christian  Faith. 


25 


have  come  from  above  and  not  to  have  been  developed  from 
below.  There  can  be  no  reconciliation  with  evolution. 

15.  Are  not  the  principles  of  natural  religion  as  much 

contradicted  by  evolution  as  those  of  supernatural 
religion  ? 

Assuredly  they  are.  Natural  theology  and  natural  re- 
ligion are  based  on  the  foundation  of  the  existence  of  God,  of 
the  creation  of  man,  of  moral  responsibility,  and  therefore  of 
man’s  spiritual  nature.  All  these  it  holds  in  common  with 
supernatural  revelation.  But  the  tendency  of  modern  evolution 
is  to  make  all  religious  ideas  and  spiritual  emotions  and  judg- 
ments of  conscience  the  final  result — so  far  as  anything  can  be 
final — of  developments,  the  processes  of  which  we  see  at  their 
various  stages  in  the  creatures  below  us. 

16.  But  does  not  the  slowness  of  revelation  after  all  form  a 

great  obstacle  to  its  ready  acceptance? 

Undoubtedly  it  does.  We  may  use  the  argument  of 
analogy  as  against  the  evolutionist  adversary  ; but  the  argu- 
ment is  only  defensive.  The  slow  unfolding  of  the  purposes  of 
God  is  and  must  ever  be  an  unsearchable  mystery. 

17.  A third  kind  of  controversy  was  mentioned,  as  to  the 

claims  of  reason  as  the  judge  and  interpreter  of  reve- 
lation ? 

Of  this  it  may  be  said,  generally,  that  a supernatural 
revelation  judged  by  reason  is  a contradiction  in  terms.  On 
the  other  hand,  that  a Divine  revelation  could  not  be  inter- 
preted by  reason  would  be  equally  a contradiction.  But  the 
question  comes  up  in  its  fit  place  under  the  Rule  of  Faith, 


26  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


Chapter  II. 

§trej»cttftals  oi*  ^ui^cnccs  of  ^l^ristian 
■gleoelation. 

§ 1.  ^^reh'mmarp, 

1.  Is  there  any  difference  between  credentials  and  evi- 

dences ? 

There  is  no  essential  difference.  But  the  term  credentials 
rather  suggests  : (i)  the  internal  character  of  revelation  as 
commending  itself  to  the  faith  and  acceptance  of  men  ; (2) 
the  Divine  attestations  given  to  the  organs  and  documents  of 
the  Faith  ; thus  (3)  the  credentials  are  from  within  and  the 
evidences  are  both  from  within  and  from  without. 

2.  What  is  here  meant  by  the  Faith  ? 

The  Faith,  the  Christian  Faith,  Divine  Revelation,  we 
must  regard  as  meaning  the  same  thing.  The  first  is  theNew- 
Testarnent  term  for  the  Christian  revelation.  It  is  addressed 
to  faith  subjective  ; those  who  receive  it  are  called  believers  ; 

and  that  which  they  receive  is  called  their  faith 
Jude  20.  objectively  : their  most  holy  faith, 

3.  How  are  men  classed  in  relation  to  these  evidences? 

(1)  In  the  New  Testament  we  read  generally  of  believers 

and  unbelievers  : doubters  are  mentioned  only  in  the 

Gospels. 

(2)  In  modern  times,  unbelievers  are  subdivided  as 
infidels  or  disbelievers  ; sceptics,  who  willingly,  or  doubters 
who  unwillingly,  remain  in  suspense ; and  agnostics,  who 
have  devised  this  name  to  express  not  the  fact  of  their 
ignorance,  but  the  impossibility  of  knowing  anything  outside 
of  nature. 


Credentials  of  Christianity. 


27 


4.  What  names  are  given  to  evidences  in  revelation  itself? 

Generally,  they  are  signs  or  witnesses,  from  God  ; proofs 
or  demonstration,  as  of  the  doctrines ; seals,  to  the  mind 
receiving  them  as  fully  assured. 

5.  What  do  we  gather  from  this? 

That  the  evidences  are  regarded  as  necessary  and  suffi- 
cient to  make  unbelief  inexcusable. 

6.  And  what  are  we  taught  as  to  the  true  though  secret 

character  of  unbelief  itself? 

That  the  god  of  this  world  hath  blinded  the  minds  of 
the  unbelieving  : they  have  an  evil  heart  of  unbelief ^ ^Cor.  iv.  4. 
and  are  reprobate  concerning  the  faith.  Unbelief  is  Heb.  iii.12. 
usually  connected  with  moral  depravity.  ^ 

7.  How  does  this  affect  the  value  of  the  evidences  ? 

It  should  lead  us  not  to  expect  too  much  from  them,  as 
apart  from  the  moral  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

8.  How  may  the  evidences  of  Christianity  be  best  studied? 

(1)  They  may  be  exhibited  as  internal  and  external: 
internal,  from  the  character  of  the  revelation  itself  ; external 
as  brought  from  history  without.  But,  strictly  speaking,  these 
cannot  be  separated  ; since  most  of  the  external  evidences  are 
only  confirmation  of  the  internal. 

(2)  The  evidences  are  really  to  be  incorporated  with  the 
doctrines  ; and  every  truth  of  a fundamental  character  must 
have  its  own  credential. 

(3)  There  is  a distinct  range  of  evidences  which  establish 
the  genuineness  of  the  books  and  institutions  of  Christianity. 

(4)  All  these  run  into  each  other ; and  every  subject  in 
theology  must  be  studied  apologetically.  Independent  works 
on  the  evidences  collectively  have  their  value  ; but  the  best 
evidences  are  distributed  through  the  whole  course. 

9.  How  do  these  evidences  concern  us  at  our  present  stage  ? 

Simply  as  the  internal  credentials  of  the  Christian  faith 
as  such  : that  is,  the  irresistible  claims  it  has  to  our  attention. 
2* 


28  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


10.  And  liow  may  these  credentials  he  arranged  ? 

It  may  be  demonstrated  in  a cumulative  way: 

(1)  That  the  Christian  revelation  is  a perfect  response 
to  human  need  and  expectation,  thus  demanding  to  be  heard  ; 

(2)  That  the  Divine  Hand  is  manifest  in  its  whole  history 
from  the  beginning  down  to  its  consummation  in  Christ ; 

(3)  That  the  character  of  Jesus  the  Revealer  is  the  supreme 
and  all-sufficient  credential  of  its  claims  ; 

(4)  That  the  history  and  effects  of  Christianity  vindicate  its 
claims  as  the  one  permanent  and  victorious  religion  ; and,  finally, 

(5)  That  the  Holy  Spirit  is  in  the  Christian  revelation  as 
its  ordained,  sufficient,  and  never-failing  demonstration. 


I. 

"^crfecf  "Response  fo  #«pccfafion. 

1.  What  is  the  bearing  of  this  credential  ? 

The  Christian  revelation  alone  answers  the  deepest  and 
most  universal  inquiries  of  human  nature  about  spiritual 
realities,  and  the  connection  between  tim^e  and  eternity. 

2.  Does  the  Christian  religion  itself  make  this  claim  ? 

Directly  or  indirectly  it  professes  everywhere  to  teach  man 
all  that  he  can  know  of  himself,  of  his  God,  of  his  redemption, 
of  his  duty,  and  of  his  way  to  heaven  : that  is,  to  respond  to 
every  instinctive  demand  of  the  human  heart.  And  that  claim 
it  justifies  ; no  question  being  unanswered,  for  good  or  evil. 

8.  But  can  it  be  said  that  Christianity  alone  does  this  ? 

Yes,  alone  : for  (i)  many  great  truths  were  never  revealed 
till  Christ  revealed  them  ; (2)  those  which  were  known  before 
were  only  partially  known  ; and  (3)  even  that  partial  know- 
ledge was  mingled  everywhere  with  corruptions. 

4.  Then  this  credential  implies  a revelation  gradually  and 
very  slowly  perfected? 

The  Christian  faith  has  this  for  its  fundamental  principle. 


Credentials  of  Christianity , 


29 


5.  What  is  the  force  of  this  credential  ? 

Its  strength  rests  on  these  impregnable  principles: 

(i)  That  the  Author  of  human  nature  intended  this 
universal  instinct,  like  every  other,  to  be  gratified  ; (2)  that 
nowhere  save  in  Christianity  is  there  even  a profession  to  offer 
this  satisfaction  ; (3)  that  in  the  religion  of  Jesus  there  is  a 
response  to  the  inquiry  of  man  individually  and  of  mankind  on 
every  possible  subject  that  concerns  our  destiny  in  time  and 
eternity  ; and  therefore  (4)  that  it  demands  even  on  these 
accounts  to  be  solemnly  considered. 

6.  Do  these  last  words  go  far  enough  ? 

Not  for  the  Christian  himself.  But  as  an  argument  for 
Christianity  it  is  sufficient  that  it  establishes  a strong  claim  for 
acceptance  : he  who  turns  away  does  it  at  a fearful  peril. 

£ts  Fintn'ration. 

7.  What  arguments  are  brought  against  this  credential? 

Two  classes  : (i)  those  which  assert  that  the  religious 
expectation  of  the  race  is  sufficiently  answered  by  all  religions, 
Christianity  being  only  one  of  them  ; and  (2)  those  which  deny 
that  the  revelation  of  Jesus  responds  truly  to  the  religious 
inquiries  of  mankind,  and  therefore  reject, it  at  once. 

8.  What  is  common  to  these,  and  what  peculiar  to  each  ? 

(1)  They  agree  in  refusing  to  Christianity  the  place  of  a 
sole  and  absolute  religion,  uniting  in  opposition  to  its  exclu- 
siveness. As  to  the  Christian  faith  they  are  one  in  Infidelity. 

(2)  They  differ,  inasmuch  as  the  former  gives  the  Christian 
system  a high  place  in  the  development  of  universal  religion, 
though  regarding  it  as  containing,  like  all  others,  corruptions 
of  primitive  religious  ideas  ; while  the  latter  holds  Christianity 
to  be  a superstition  contradictory  to  the  truer  natural  religion. 

9.  Is  Christianity  rejected  by  both  as  being  supernatural? 

Strictly  speaking,  it  is  so  : the  modern  science  of  religion 
regards  the  religious  instinct,  or  the  faculty  for  the  Infinite,  as 
taking  a wide  variety  of  forms ; and  indeed  makes  that  variety 
the  deepest  secret  of  race  distinction.  Hence  it  thinks  that  no 


30  Christian  Revelation  a7id  the  Rule  of  Faith, 


single  religion  can  give  that  one  universal  response  which  is 
adapted  to  all  races  of  men  alike. 

10.  How  does  our  credential  meet  this  ? 

By  firmly  maintaining  that  there  must  be  one  absolute 
religion  ; and  by  insisting  on  the  great  gulf  that  is  fixed 
between  the  highest  development  of  any  natural  religion  and 
ihe  first  elements  of  Divine  revelation  or  the  Christian  faith. 

11.  Does  not  the  science  of  religion  admit  this  superiority  ? 

No  : it  holds  that  the  specific  doctrines  of  Christianity — 
such  as  the  incarnation,  the  atonement,  and  the  future  destiny 
of  men — are  morbid  developments  of  germs  in  other  religions. 
Rejecting  these  doctrines,  it  holds  nevertheless  that  the  ethics 
of  Christianity  are  on  the  whole  the  highest. 

12.  What  is  the  tendency  of  modern  infidelity  as  avowed 

opposition  to  the  Christian  faith? 

It  is  rapidly  drifting  toward  the  denial  of  our  spiritual 
nature  and  immortality.  The  infidelity  of  Positivism  holds 
that  man’s  spiritual  instincts  are  accidents  of  his  nature,  which 
he  invents  a religion  to  respond  to.  Agnosticism  wraps  both 
the  inquiry  and  the  response  in  a cloud  of  darkness.  Hence 
with  these  our  credential  has  necessarily  no  force. 

13.  But  the  credential  has  its  force  against  them? 

Yes  : for  the  universal  appeal  to  the  supernatural  cannot 
be  suppressed.  Modern  Theism  is  a protest  in  defence  of  it. 
But  Theism,  like  the  Deism  of  the  last  century,  denies  to  Jesus 
supreme  authority  ; and  this  is  its  weakness  as  a protest.  God 
does  not  answer  the  cries  of  humanity  save  by  His  Incar- 
nate Son  : mere  nature  cannot  teach  or  save  nature. 

II. 

of  ^ob  in  §§risftan  '^etjclaiton. 

1.  What  is  meant  hy  this  credential  ? 

That  throughout  the  whole  course  of  revelation,  as  per- 


Credentials  of  Christianity. 


31 


fected  in  Christ  and  the  documents  of  the  Christian  Faith, 
there  are  manifest  proofs  of  the  Divine  presence  in  the  super- 
natural order  : of  God’s  power  in  miracles  ; of  His  knowledge 
in  prophecy  ; and  of  His  wisdom  in  the  unity  of  the  whole  reve- 
lation. This  last  is  important  as  the  complement  of  the  others. 

2.  How  does  the  supernatural  order  cover  all  this  ? 

A power  above  phenomenal  nature  has  been  always 
operating  among  men,  the  occasional  tokens  of  Avhich  we  call 
miracles  ; a guidance  above  the  light  of  human  reason  has  been 
always  present,  the  manifestations  of  which  we  call  prophecy  ; 
and  both  have  been  fixed  and  rendered  permanent  in  human 
affairs  by  the  documents  of  revelation  as  consummated  in  the 
Christian  faith.  The  last  is  only  another  form  of  the  others. 

3.  What  is  the  force  of  this  credential  ? 

To  those  who  yield  to  the  preliminary  demand  of  the 
first,  it  comes  as  an  irresistible  confirmation. 

§ 1. 

1.  What  is  the  meaning  of  miracle  as  a credential? 

(i)  It  signifies  any  act  of  God  which  is  distinguished  from 
those  ordinary  Divine  operations  the  laws  of  which  we  know  ; 
and  (2)  it  signifies  any  act  of  God  which  is  performed  for  the 
sake  of  confirming  His  word.  Miracle  in  both  senses  is  bound 
up  with  the  entire  fabric  of  revelation. 

2.  How  are  these  two  meanings  related  ? 

The  former,  known  as  powers,  Svm/i€t9,  or  works  c/oya,  or 
wonderful  things,  /xeyaXeta,  are  generally  the  substance  of 
revelation  itself.  The  latter,  o-r^/xeta,  are,  so  far  as  distinguished 
from  the  former,  the  occasional  tokens  by  which  it  pleases  God 
to  excite  and  encourage  human  faith. 

3.  How  may  we  illustrate  from  the  Scriptures  the  distinc-  • 

tion  thus  attempted? 

The  two  highest  instances  may  suffice.  The  incarnation 
of  the  Son  of  God  was  the  supreme  miracle,  and  itself  revela- 


32  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


tion  ; the  sign  was  the  miraculous  conception.  The  gift  of  the 
Spirit  and  His  influence  were  the  wonderful  works  of  God, 
and  the  revelation  itself  ; the  speaking  with  tongues  was  the 
miracle  as  sign.  But  illustrations  are  found  in  the  entire  series 
of  the  older  and  later  records. 

Cts  Ftoicati'on. 

4.  Wliat  may  he  urged  against  this  credential? 

(i)  Objections  are  taken  to  the  possibility  of  miracle 
generally  ; (2)  the  general  evidence  of  miracles  may  be  im- 
peached ; (3)  the  character  of  some  special  miracles  is  turned 
to  the  disparagement  of  all  ; (4)  the  testimony  of  the  New 
Testament  is  sometimes  quoted  against  the  validity  of  this 
evidence  ; (5)  extra-Biblical  miracles,  and  wonders  performed 
by  other  than  Divine  power,  are  brought  in  as  arguments 
which  can  hardly  be  meant  to  do  more  than  excite  prejudice. 

6.  How  may  we  meet  the  first  ? 

By  simply  asserting  that,  if  God  is.  He  may  do  what- 
soever He  will.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  He  has  in  any  way 
bound  Himself  to  what  are  called  natural  laws. 

6.  What  may  he  said  as  to  the  general  evidence  of  miracles  ? 

That  they  are,  like  other  events,  matter  of  testimony.  The 
Biblical  miracles  were  accepted  by  those  who  witnessed  them 
on  the  evidence  of  their  senses  ; and  they  are  accepted  by  after 
generations  on  historical  evidence  sufficient  to  command  cre- 
dence : being  worthy  of  all  acceptation,  whether  regard  be  had 
to  the  character  of  the  reporters  or  to  the  dignity  of  the  per- 
formers or  to  the  reasons  for  which  they  were  performed. 

7.  Has  the  third  objection  any  force? 

No  : for  the  few  miracles  which  seem  unworthy  of  the 
Divine  intervention  really  convey  important  lessons  as  to  the 
power  and  special  providence  of  God  : indeed,  not  a 
miracle  recorded  fails  itself  to  teach  as  well  as  to 
vindicate  the  teacher.  This  applies  both  to  the 
wonder  which  is  thought  to  be  too  great  and  to  that  which 
is  thought  to  be  too  little. 


Credentials  of  Christianity. 


33 


8.  But  does  not  the  Bible  in  some  sense  disparage  miracles? 

There  are  two  errors  to  be  avoided  here  : 

(1)  It  is  true  that  the  signs  are  disparaged  in  comparison 
of  the  thing  signified.  Hence  the  phenomenal  miracles  com- 
paratively ceased  after  the  permanent  miracle  of  the  resurrection 
of  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirits  abiding  presence. 

(2)  Undue  dependence  on  miracles  is  deprecated  : 

Except  ye  see  signs  and  wonders^  ye  will  in  no  wise  xx.  29*;  ii! 
believe  I 

(3)  But,  while  revelation  in  Christ  was  in  process,  every 
great  crisis  was  attended  by  miracles : the  patriarchal  times, 
the  Mosaic  institute,  the  restoration  under  Elijah,  the  cap- 
tivity, the  advent  and  life  and  resurrection  of  Jesus,  the 
Pentecostal  establishment  of  the  church,  the  minor  pentecosts, 
the  heralding  of  the  Gospel  by  the  apostles,  all  illustrate  and 
exalt  the  special  design  of  miraculous  interventions. 

9.  How  do  the  miracles  not  bound  up  with  revelation  affect 

the  question? 

(1)  The  portents  performed — if  indeed  performed — by  the 
permission  of  God  were  indirectly  His  own. 

(2)  Miracles  alleged  in  times  following  the  consummation 
of  the  faith  must  stand  or  fall  by  their  evidence  : there  is  no 
law  or  prophecy  of  revelation  which  they  necessarily  contradict. 

§ 2.  f rop^ecg. 

1.  What  is  the  meaning  of  prophecy  as  a credential? 

(i)  It  signifies  the  method  of  the  Divine  announcement 
by  special  inspired  agents  ; (2)  the  prediction  by  these  agents 
of  the  coming  accomplishment  of  the  Divine  purposes.  In 
both  these  senses  prophecy  is  an  essential  and  pervasive 
element  of  revelation:  but  neither  without  the  other. 

2.  In  what  sense  pervasive  as  to  the  former? 

God  has  never  spoken  from  heaven  to  man  but  through 
men  of  whom  it  is  said  that  He  put  His  Spirit  Numb.  xi. 
upon  them  : this  is  true  of  all  from  Moses  to  our  29. 

Lord.  Here  the  word  prophet  means  one  who  announces  or 
speaks  before  others. 


34  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


3.  What  then  were  the  prophet’s  own  credentials? 

Such  tokens  of  the  Divine  Spirit  with  him  and  of  the 
Deut  xviii  divinity  of  his  message  as  were  sufficient  for  those 
23/  ’ who  heard  : as  in  the  case  of  the  workers  of  miracles 

John  vii.  18.  must  judge  of  both  by  the  records  of  their 
ministry. 

4.  In  what  sense  pervasive  as  to  the  latter  ? 

From  the  first  prediction  It  shall  bruise  thy  head  down  to 
the  last  I come  quickly^  it  has  pleased  God  to  predict  the 
Gen.  iii.  15.  coming  future;  and  through  the  events  of  im-. 
Rev.xxii.20.  mediately  coming  times  to  predict  the  events  of 
times  more  distant. 

5.  What  are  the  main  laws  of  prophetic  prediction? 

(1)  The  coming  Christ  is  its  central  subject  and  object: 
directly  or  indirectly  all  prophetic  announcement  tends  to  Him. 

(2)  There  is  prophecy  of  His  first  coming ; followed  by  pro- 
phecy of  His  second  coming : dividing  the  ages  into  two  parts. 

(3)  In  the  subordinate  prophecies  the  outlines  of  all  the 
future  are  more  or  less  vividly  sketched. 

(4)  Every  prophetic  stage  is  folded  in  reserve,  more  or 
less,  until  the  accomplishment  brings  in  its  light. 

(5)  All  prophecies,  like  all  miracles,  have  been  at  the 
same  time  vehicles  of  general  instruction. 

6.  What  is  the  general  character  of  this  credential  ? 

While  the  evidential  force  of  the  miracle  has  been  felt  by 
the  then  present  generation,  that  of  the  prophecy  is  mainly 
for  the  generation  that  witnesses  the  accomplishment. 

7.  Were  not  prophecy  and  miracle  blended  as  credentials  ? 

(1)  The  prophets  sometimes  wrought  miracles  both  to 
authenticate  and  to  illustrate  their  messages. 

(2)  Their  prophetic  inspiration  was  itself  a miracle. 

(3)  Miracle  and  prophecy  run  together  through  all  the 
history  of  revelation  until  the  church  was  founded,  and  then 
both  gradually  cease  together. 


Credentials  of  Christianity . 


35 


8.  Have  they  then  ceased? 

At  the  time  of  the  end  miracle  will  wind  up  the  history  of 
the  world  as  the  last  and  greatest  accomplishment  of  prophecy. 

FmDttation. 

9.  What  are  the  tests  of  this  credential? 

Prophetic  prediction  must  be  proved  to  have  been  Divine 
and  not  the  result  of  human  foresight  ; to  have  been  accom- 
plished only  by  Divine  power  ; and  of  course  to  have  been 
uttered  before  the  event. 

10.  Will  all  the  predictions  of  revelation  sustain  these 

tests  ? 

So  far  as  we  are  capable  of  applying  them  they  will.  In 
some  cases  the  limited  resources  of  history  forbid.  But  in  all 
that  concerns  the  established  Christian  revelation  there  remains 
no  shadow  of  doubt. 

11.  How  may  this  be  illustrated  ? 

(1)  The  prophetic  Form  of  the  coming  Messiah,  drawn 
by  many  pens  during  a thousand  years,  and  the  dispersion  of  the 
ancient  people  predicted  in  both  Testaments,  were  the  pro- 
phecies of  omniscience  ; the  fulfilment  could  not  have  been 
brought  about  by  human  devices  ; and  certainly  the  predic- 
tions were  before  the  event. 

(2)  The  Assyrian  conquest  of  Israel,  the  ruin  of  Nineveh, 
and  afterwards  of  Babylon,  the  Babylonian  captivity,  in  the 
Old  Testament ; the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  the  New,  are 
a few  out  of  many  other  instances  which  must  be  studied. 

(3)  But  the  credential  is  one  that  will  be  felt  in  all  its 
force  when  the  entire  series  of  prophecies  is  examined  in 
the  light  of  their  fulfilment. 

12.  Are  not  some  of  the  ancient  predictions  supposed  to 

have  been  written  after  the  event  ? 

That  has  always  been  the  contention  as  it  respects  Daniel 
especially.  His  book  is  the  battle-ground  as  to  both  miracle 


36  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


and  prophecy.  In  modern  times,  however,  the  Pentateuch 
and  the  Messianic  psalms,  with  most  of  the  other  prophetical 
parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  are  assigned  to  a very  late  period. 

13.  How  are  these  assaults  on  the  credential  to  he  mot? 

By  careful  study  of  the  evidence,  which,  as  it  satisfied 
the  ancient  Jewish  and  Christian  churches,  will  satisfy  us. 
Meanwhile  the  Lord  Himself  has  thrown  His  shield  around 
precisely  those  books  that  are  most  assailed. 

§ 3.  Slnitg  of  lUebelation. 

1.  What  is  meant  by  this  credential  ? 

That  the  unity  of  revelation  as  a whole,  and  of  its  docu- 
ments as  the  record  given  in  many  ages  by  many  hands,  yields 
strong  concurrent  evidence  that  it  comes  from  God. 

2.  How  may  this  credential  he  viewed  ? 

More  generally  and  more  particularly.  Generally,  there 
is  nothing  in  the  world’s  history  that  can  parallel  the  sublime 
oneness  and  uniqueness  of  the  revelation  of  God  as  exhibited 
in  the  finished  Christian  system.  Particularly,  the  agreement 
of  so  many  authors,  writing  in  various  ages  and  lands,  in  one 
great  design,  and  the  organic  harmony  of  the  one  Bible  as  the 
result,  furnish  unlimited  illustration  of  an  argument  that  has 
the  strongest  moral  force. 

3.  But  is  there  not  another  side  to  this  argument? 

Yes,  it  is  turned  against  us  by  two  classes  of  opponents  : 
those  who  think  the  slow  development  of  the  great  scheme 
fatal  to  its  divinity;  and  those  who  allege  the  internal  differ- 
ences of  the  revelation  itself. 

4.  How  may  we  meet  the  former  ? 

By  falling  back  upon  the  principle  on  which  Christianity 
rests:  that  it  is  an  eternal  purpose  gradually  accomplished. 
And  those  wdio  hold  fast  evolution  in  every  branch  of  their 
philosophy  should  not  oppose  it  here. 


Credentials  of  Christiamty . 


37 


6.  And  liow  the  latter  ? 

By  asserting  and  proving  that  the  apparent  discords  are 
harmonised  through  their  unity  in  Christ:  Who  is  Himself 
the  supreme  Apologist  of  His  own  religion. 


III. 

Supreme  ^re5cnfial:  ^oun5er  of 

§ 1.  ©rrtjenti'al  Itself. 

1.  What  is  meant  by  this? 

That  there  is  no  argument,  internal  or  external,  in  favour 
of  Christianity  so  powerful  as  the  character  of  its  Founder. 

2.  Does  character  here  mean  excellence  simply? 

Rather  His  person,  manifestation  and  life  as  a whole  ; but 
especially  the  perfect  consistency  between  His  claims  and 
Himself.  This,  however,  will  include  much  more. 

3.  What  is  the  force  of  this  as  a credential  ? 

Obviously  it  is  exceedingly  strong  if  it  can  be  proved. 
Christianity  in  the  person  of  Jesus  makes  a transcendent  claim: 
in  fact,  its  most  difficult  problem  is  the  pretension  of  its 
Founder.  Now  the  slightest  disparity  between  His  presenta- 
tion of  Himself  and  that  claim  would  be  fatal. 

4.  Is  it  enough  to  show  that  there  is  no  inconsistency  ? 

No  : that  is  only  negative.  We  should  show  positively 
that  all  we  know  of  Jesus  supports  His  plea.  But  it  is  obvious 
that  all  we  know  of  Him  is  but  little  ; and  therefore  that  the 
strength  of  our  credential  lies  mainly  in  the  negative  demon- 
stration, which  however  easily  passes  into  the  positive. 

5.  Would  not  the  Lord’s  consummate  moral  excellence 

itself  and  alone  carry  all  with  it? 

It  does  indeed  to  His  own  : to  them  the  personal  character 
of  Jfsus  is  the  sufficient  credential  for  Himself,  His  doctrine, 


38  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


and  the  entire  Scriptures.  But  for  the  world  at  large  a wider 
view  must  be  taken : more  than  merely  human  excellence 
being  affirmed  of  the  Divine-human  Author  of  Christianity. 

6.  How  then  shall  we  proceed? 

By  considering  His  claims,  with  their  credential  in  the 
consistency  of  His  character  with  those  claims ; and  then  by 
establishing  the  futility  of  every  objection. 


§ 2.  2Tf)e  ©laim  of  gesus, 

1.  How  may  the  Lord’s  claim  he  most  strongly  stated? 

By  exhibiting  it  in  a few  broad  antitheses  : 

(1)  He  professes  to  be  in  His  own  person  God  Himself 
teaching  mankind,  and  yet  withal  a human  teacher. 

(2)  He  comes  with  a provision  for  man^s  universal  salva- 
tion, which  however  man  must  seek  for  and  apply. 

(3)  He  presents  Himself  as  the  sinless  Son  of  God,  yet  as 
not  the  less  on  that  account  a human  example  of  perfection. 

(4)  He  avowedly  purposes  to  set  up  a universal  kingdom, 
which  however  is  not  to  appear  till  the  end  of  the  world. 

(5)  He  makes  His  departure  an  essential  part  of  His 
design,  and  yet  promises  His  constant  presence. 

2.  Is  all  this  to  he  included  in  the  claim  of  Jesus? 

All  without  exception.  Neither  Christ  nor  His  religion 
can  be  either  understood  or  defended  if  any  are  omitted. 

3.  Does  our  Lord  Himself  unite  these  in  His  appeals  ? 

Only  by  degrees  did  either  He  or  His  apostles  blend 
them  ; but  in  the  final  gospel  which  we  have  to  defend  they 
are  combined  in  their  unity. 

4.  Is  it  not  wiser  to  take  lower  ground  ? 

Under  certain  circumstances  it  might  be  expedient : it 
was  so,  and  it  may  still  be  so,  in  the  first  approaches  to  the 
heathen  ; and,  if  we  are  pleading  for  the  Lord’s  highest  place 
in  the  science  of  religion,  His  supremacy  among  human 


Credentials  of  Christianity. 


39 


teachers  may  be  insisted  on.  But  the  defence  of  Christianity 
is  the  defence  of  the  perfect  Christ;  Immanuel,  God  Matt.i.23. 

WITH  US. 

6.  This  implies  that  the  advocacy  of  many  theistic  and 
Unitarian  friends  of  the  Christian  faith  is  declined? 

Undoubtedly:  while  admitting  how  convincing  it  is  so  far 
as  it  goes.  We  do  not  vindicate  a human  founder  of  the  faith. 

6.  But  speaking  of  His  claim,  consistently  maintained,  as 
a credential,  how  may  we  simplify  these  points  ? 

By  studying  separately  and  as  united  the  Lord’s  presenta- 
tion of  Himself  as  Divine-human  ; and  the  perfect  sinlessness 
of  His  character.  These  are  the  two  main  points. 


^onsistencp  of  tljw  €latm. 

7.  How  may  this  be  traced  ? 

It  may  be  said  that  the  whole  tenour  of  our  Lord’s  mani- 
festation can  be  perfectly  explained  as  in  harmony  with  these 
claims : with  these  only,  but  certainly  with  these. 

8.  Does  not  the  very  claim  by  its  transcendent  uniqueness 

condemn  itself? 

It  should  have  the  opposite  effect : that  no  one  had  ever 
made  such  a pretension  is  a most  wonderful  truth  in  itself  ; 
while  the  distant  anticipation  of  it  both  in  Judaism  and  in 
heathenism  brings  its  sublimity  into  clearer  relief. 

9.  How  is  the  great  claim  sustained? 

By  the  wonderful  consistency  with  which  our  Lord  speaks 
every  word  as  heard  of  the  Father,  as  having  a final  authority, 
and  yet  as  spoken  under  a commission.  He  never  classes 
Himself  with  human  teachers  ; nor  indeed  with  men. 

10.  But  what  makes  it  a credential  of  Christianity  ? 

That  this  claim  is  consistently  made  by  One  whose 
faultless  sanctity  and  perfect  selfsacrifice  demand  our  faith 
in  Him.  Not  to  tr  ist  Him  seems  to  be  self-condemned. 


40  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


11.  But  can  that  perfect  character  he  proved? 

It  is  undoubted  that  the  Lord  claims  to  be  exempt  from 
sin.  We  see  Him  before  us  in  the  lustre  of  all  devotion  to 
God  and  man.  And  we  are  bound  to  accept  His  own  solution 
and  His  evangelist’s  : beholding  in  Him  the  glory 
Jo  n 1. 14.  of  the  only-begotteji  from  the  Father, 

12.  Is  the  credential  then  the  incarnation  or  the  sinlessness  ? 
These  are  indissolubly  united  : the  one  confirms  the  other. 

13.  But  supposing  both  denied? 

Then  we  fall  back  upon  the  human  excellence,  and  ask : 
Could  one  with  the  high  measure  of  goodness  which  all 
, , . concede  to  Christ  have  been  capable  of  such  an 

X. 30;  xiv.  awful  and  unparalleled  assertion  as  that  the  bather 
was  in  him,  one  with  him  and  seen  in  him  as 
in  no  other  1 

14.  What  is  the  force  of  the  credential  to  those  who  accept 

it? 

It  is  the  credential  of  all  other  credentials : giving  a 
heavenly  dignity  and  sanctity  to  the  Gospels  ; plenary 
authority  to  the  entire  Scriptures  as  protected  and  sanctioned 
by  their  Lord  ; and  stability  to  the  whole  Christian  system. 

§ 3.  Finlu'cation  of  ©retiniti'al. 

1.  What  is  meant  hy  this  vindication  ? 

Simply  the  proving  that  no  hostile  hypothesis  concerning 
the  Founder  of  Christianity  can  be  sustained. 

2.  How  may  such  hypotheses  he  classified? 

By  taking  historically  the  forms  they  have  assumed  ; but 
this  will  come  in  at  a later  stage  when  the  triumphs  of  Chris- 
tianity are  before  us.  At  present  it  is  enough  to  consider  the 
two  theories  to  which  all  others  may  be  reduced. 

3.  What  are  they? 

Either  Jesus  was  an  enthusiast,  and  his  disciples  shared 
his  fanaticism  ; or  he  was  an  impostor,  and  his  followers, 
whether  consciously  or  unconsciously,  entered  into  bis  im- 


Credentials  of  Christianity, 


41 


posture.  The  case  may  be  put  in  many  forms,  but  it  must 
come  at  last  to  this  alternative. 

4.  Must  the  disciples  he  hound  up  so  olosely  with  their 

Master  in  this  argument? 

They  cannot  be  separated-  We  know  nothing  or  little  of 
Jesus  apart  from  the  records  of  His  followers  : He  made  them 
what  they  were  ; and  they  then  made  Him  what  we  receive. 

5.  Heis  the  theory  of  imposture  been  ever  really  maintained  ? 

It  was  certainly  that  of  His  Jewish  enemies  in  the 
Gospels,  and  of  the  malignant  foes  of  Christianity  in  early 
centuries.  It  was  revived  in  the  last  century  ; but  can  hardly 
be  said  to  survive  in  the  present  day. 

6.  What  is  its  sufficient  refutation? 

Our  Lord’s  two  words  gave  it  once  for  all : How  can 
Satan  cast  out  Satan  ? and  He  that  speaketh  of  him-  , ... 
self  seeketh  his  own  glory.  By  these  two  tests,  well  joim  vii."  is* 
weighed  before  application,  both  Jesus  and  His 
disciples  are  vindicated  for  ever.  The  effect  He  gave  in  a third 
word ; Ye  both  know  Me  ajid ye  know  whence  I am  ! 

7.  Where  lies  the  force  of  this  vindication  ? 

Steadfast  opposition  to  all  evil,  and  utter  absence  of  self- 
ends, were  never  notes  of  imposture  since  the  world  began. 

8.  Then  the  hypothesis  of  self-deceived  enthusiasm  remains. 

That  was  unknown  in  the  earliest  times,  or  to  the  contem- 
poraries of  Jesus  and  His  apostles  : in  the  face  of  their  practical 
simplicity,  and  the  logical  coherence  of  the  system  they 
taught,  it  could  not  arise.  But  it  has  appeared  in  later  times 
under  many  forms. 

9.  How  has  this  affected  the  estimate  of  our  Lord’s  personal 

character  ? 

(i)  Some  have  supposed  that  he  never  asserted  his  sin- 
lessness; but  only  challenged  his  foes  as  a man  conscious  of 
high  purpose  might  challenge  them. 


42  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


(2)  Some  that  he  consciously  fell  into  unheroic  fear  of 
death,  and  anger  against  sinners : which  however  they  do 
not  regard  as  absolutely  inconsistent  with  high  integrity. 

(3)  Others,  again,  suppose  that  he  began  with  a pure 
aim,  but  gradually  yielded  to  the  temptation  he  once  resisted  ; 
in  which  case  enthusiasm  and  imposture  joined.  This  was  the 
argument  of  the  infidels  of  Europe  at  the  beginning  of  the 
century : forced  upon  them  as  an  expedient  of  compromise. 

10.  And  what  is  the  defence  of  our  Lord’s  personal  cha- 

racter ? 

Its  entire  consistency  with  His  incarnate  relation  to  God 
and  man.  His  holiness  is  Divine  but  in  human  nature.  His 
severity  was  that  of  the  ancient  Jehovah,  and  belonged  only 
to  God.  His  struggle  with  suffering  pertained  to  the  mystery 
of  His  unshared  redeeming  passion.  His  pure  and  absolute 
perfection  shines  through  all. 

11.  What  forms  do  the  more  special  theories  assume? 

Three : having  respect  to  the  Lord  Himself,  to  His 
disciples,  and  to  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament.  To  state 
these  individually  is  to  refute  them. 

12.  How  does  this  apply  to  our  Lord? 

We  are  required  by  infidelity  to  believe  that  he  conceived 
the  design  to  assume  the  character  of  the  Messiah  ; that  he 
studied  the  prophets  to  that  end  ; formed  his  plan  in  the 
wilderness  ; gave  himself  out  to  be  always  taught  of  God  ; and 
paid  the  penalty  of  his  self-deception  in  death  ; but  left  the 
legacy  of  his  sublime  delusion  to  his  followers.  It  is  enough 
to  ask  : Can  any  one  read  the  Gospels  and  believe  this  ? 

13.  How  to  His  disciples? 

They  are  supposed  to  have  made  their  Master  their  hero  ; 
and  to  have  woven  around  Him  as  the  central  figure,  or 
Messianic  m^yth  of  Jewish  hope,  the  wonderful  narratives  of 
the  Gospels  and  Acts.  This  is  sometimes  called  the  Legendary 
and  Mythical  theory  ; and  it  is  swept  away  by  three  considera- 
tions : the  simplicity  of  these  men,  first  j then  their  firm 


Credentials  of  Christianity, 


43 


conviction  of  the  Lord^s  veritable  resurrection  ; and  finally, 
the  heroic  sacrifice  of  their  lives  for  their  personal  Lord. 

14.  And  how  to  the  writings? 

The  latest  and  most  laborious  effort  of  unbelief  has  en- 
deavoured to  show  that  Christianity  was  simply  a sect  of 
Judaism,  probably  originating  from  Essenism  ; that,  after  the 
martyrdom  of  its  founder,  it  was  divided  into  a straiter  Judaic 
community  and  one  that  would  abolish  the  ceremonial  law  and 
admit  the  world  : that  some  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment were  composed  in  one  interest,  some  in  the  other,  and 
some  aimed  to  unite  the  two  tendencies. 

16.  How  does  St.  Paul  appear  in  this  theory? 

As  really  the  founder  of  Christianity  : since  his  teaching 
transformed  Christ  from  the  highest  Jewish  Rabbi,  which  he 
was,  into  an  abolisher  of  Judaism,  which  he  was  not. 

16.  What  is  the  refutation  of  it? 

(1)  The  perfect  unity  of  all  these  writings,  when  collated 
in  their  reference  to  the  Christ. 

(2)  The  testimony  of  St.  Paul  himself  as  to  his  conversion 
— an  argument  of  great  force  in  favour  of  Christianity — and  as 
to  his  relations  with  the  Lord  and  the  other  apostles. 


IV. 

gnfluence  an6  permanence  of  f^risftantffi. 

1.  What  are  the  general  bearings  of  this  credential  ? 

It  supposes  the  religion  of  Christ  to  be  in  the  world,  and 
to  plead  from  age  to  age  its  own  perfect  adaptation  to  the 
needs  of  man,  with  its  accomplishment  of  its  own  professed 
designs  as  the  only  saving  power  among  men. 

2.  Under  what  laws  must  we  study  and  interpret  it? 

We  must  consider  (i)  what  this  religion  professes  to  do  ; 
(2)  under  what  conditions  ; and  (3)  against  what  opposition, 

3 


44  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


3.  What  is  its  force  as  a credential  ? 

Taken  by  itself,  it  cannot  go  further  than  to  claim  respect 
for  Christianity  and  make  it  probable  that  it  is  of  Divine  origin. 
Following,  however,  the  plea  from  the  character  of  Jesus,  it 
has  irresistible  weight. 

4.  Is  it  ever  literally  irresistible? 

By  no  means  : the  good  work  of  the  Christian  religion  in 
the  world,  and  its  manifest  tendency  to  become  the  sovereign 
power  among  men,  are  by  many  blankly  denied  or  accounted 
for  on  natural  principles. 

5.  What  then  is  the  first  great  profession  of  the  gospel  ? 

To  bring  to  every  man  who  embraces  it  reconciliation 
with  God  through  the  cross,  the  entire  sanctification  of  his 
nature,  and  victory  over  all  fear  for  the  future. 

6.  How  is  it  justified? 

By  the  experience  of  countless  multitudes  : against  which, 
on  the  one  hand,  nothing  can  be  rationally  alleged,  not  even 
the  inconsistencies  of  many  professors  of  Christianity  ; though, 
on  the  other,  it  must  be  admitted  that  it  is  an  argument  that 
cannot  be  demonstrative  to  unbelief. 

7.  What  further  does  it  profess  ? 

To  introduce  a kingdom  of  heaven  among  men  the  powers 
of  which  shall  remove  by  degrees  every  yoke  of  ignorance, 
cruelty,  misery  and  vice. 

8.  Has  not  Christianity  notoriously  failed  to  redeem  this 

pledge  ? 

(1)  Before  answering  this,  two  things  are  to  be  taken 
into  account : the  kingdom  of  God  must  not  be  identified  with 
the  visible  church,  which  has  itself  fallen  into  corruption  ; and 
the  promise  of  our  Lord  was  that  the  tree  should  slowly  grow 
and  the  leaven  gradually  leaven  the  lump.  The  gospel  does 
not  profess  to  be  an  irresistible  and  despotic  power. 

(2)  These  reservations  made,  we  may  appeal : to  the  differ- 


Credentials  of  Christianity . 


45 


ence  between  the  heathen  world  and  the  Christian  ; the  coinci- 
dence of  Christianity  and  civilisation  ; the  elevation  of  woman  ; 
the  gradual  suppression  of  slavery  ; the  mitigation  of  war  ; and 
countless  blessings  which  the  religion  of  Christ  has  given  to  a 
world  that  is  by  degrees  becoming  conscious  of  the  benefit. 

Fifto-rioua  UmUuati'on  of  Itself  fip  ^fin'stfam'tp. 

9.  Has  the  success  of  Christianity  over  its  opponents  been 

such  as  to  vindicate  its  claims? 

Assuredly  it  has  : always  taking  into  account  the  spiri- 
tuality of  its  claims  ; and  its  own  predictions  concerning  that 
success.  We  must  always  remember  its  own  profession. 

10.  Will  the  argument  allow  these  to  be  taken  into  account  ? 

Certainly : for  (i)  it  only  professed  to  be  a spiritual 
power,  which  should  produce  and  overcome  its  enemies  by 
conviction  ;*  and  (2)  its  predictions  are  part  of  Christianity 
itself,  which  teach  us  to  expect  a slow  succession  of  victories. 

11.  But  is  not  the  present  condition  of  Christendom  in 

relation  to  the  world  at  large  a great  preliminary 
obstacle  ? 

Undoubtedly  it  is.  There  is  no  doubt,  however,  that 
Christianity  is  gradually  suppressing  every  form  of  heathenism 
and  superstition.  Its  ultimate  universality  is,  even  humanly 
speaking,  merely  a matter  of  time. 

12.  Has  the  Faith  vanquished  its  first  enemy,  Judaism  ? 

In  the  age  after  the  Lord’s  departure,  the  chief  triumphs 
of  Christianity  were  over  the  Jews,  who  were  and  have  con- 
tinued its  bitterest  enemies.  The  religion  of  Jesus  has  now 
indisputably  the  place  which  Judaism  once  had.  And  the 
continuance  of  the  ancient  people,  with  their  veiled  Old 
Testament  in  their  hands,  is  itself  a standing  triumph  of 
Christianity  ; even  as  their  future  conversion  will  be. 

13.  Can  it  be  said  to  have  triumphed  over  heathenism? 

It  has  always  triumphed  over  it  as  an  opponent : wherever 
it  has  resisted,  it  has  yielded  or  is  yielding. 


46  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


14.  But  has  not  heathenism  sometimes  vanquished  its 

victor  ? 

Yes : throughout  its  history.  The  heathenism  of  the 
Roman  empire,  Oriental  philosophy,  and  Judaism — all  van- 
quished— left  their  impress  on  Christianity  ; and  its  subsequent 
corruptions  were  the  result.  But  the  genuine  influence  of  the 
Faith  was  never  lost,  nor  ever  without  perceptible  evidence. 

15.  Is  not  this  at  best  an  imperfect  triumph? 

Yes  : if  triumph  is  estimated  on  human  principles.  But 
to  a thoughtful  mind  the  fact  that  Christianity,  so  heavily 
encumbered,  has  done  so  much  is  a strong  argument  in  its 
favour.  As  a merely  human  system  it  has  been  its  own  enemy. 

16.  But  is  there  really  any  form  of  heathenism  that  has 

been  abolished  ? 

The  mythologies  of  Greece  and  Rome ; the  Scandinavian, 
Gothic,  and  many  other  superstitions  vanished  in  early  times. 
In  later  days  many  of  the  ruder  forms  of  heathenism  are 
known  to  have  been  displaced.  The  more  ancient  and  firmly 
rooted  systems  of  the  East  are  slowly  but  surely  yielding. 

17.  If  it  be  said  that  some  of  these  decaying  systems  did 

in  their  time  triumph  over  others,  even  as  Christianity 
has  : what  then  ? 

The  inference  suggested  is  that  the  influence  of  the 
Christian  faith  may  also  decline  ; but  it  is  enough  to  say  that 
it  is  giving  no  tokens  of  that.  Moreover,  we  can  trace  in  every 
great  religious  movement  that  has  only  for  a time  swayed  the 
world  the  reasons  of  its  decay : the  want  of  truth  or  even  the 
profession  to  bring  truth,  in  some;  dependence  on  the  sword, 
and  pandering  to  vice,  in  others  ; and,  in  the  best,  the  lack 
of  a universal  mission.  Christianity  declares  war  against  every 
other  religion  ; conciliates  nothing  evil  in  man  ; and  patiently 
but  confidently  waits  its  time. 

18.  But,  finally,  are  not  modern  philosophy  and  science 

winning  a victory  over  Christian  faith  ? 

Nothing  can  be  less  true  than  that.  Philosophy  is  in  its 
best  forms  paying  its  tribute  to  the  essential  doctrines  of  the 


Credentials  of  Christianity . 


47 


Faith.  And  science,  though  rejecting  the  supposed  fetters  of 
Scripture,  is,  when  believing  in  God,  coming  more  fully  to 
believe  in  Christ  also  : agnostic  Atheism  is  neither  philosophy 
nor  science.  In  any  case,  neither  mental  philosophy  nor  physical, 
can  be  said  to  be  retarding  or  overcoming  the  Christian  religion. 

V. 

1.  In  what  sense  have  we  here  a credential  ? 

The  Christian  revelation  does  undoubtedly  base  its  evi- 
dence on  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  : on  the  one  hand, 
as  enforcing  its  claims  ; and,  on  the  other,  as  perfectly  satisfying 
those  who  do  not  reject  Him. 

2.  Is  not  this  staking  too  much,  by  limiting  the  acceptance 

of  Christianity  to  such  as  have  personal  experience  ? 

The  former  part  of  our  proposition  precludes  that  : the 
Holy  Spirit  is  given  to  demonstrate  the  claims  of  the  gospel 
even  to  those  who  resist  it,  and  even  seem  to  disbelieve  it. 

3.  Then  the  New  Testament  really  witnesses  to  itself? 

Its  plea  amounts  to  that.  It  comes  with  the  promise  of  a 
Divine  power ; and  is  content  to  be  rejected  if  that  is  not  felt : 
this  is  apparently  a petitio  principii,  and  so  in  its  last  issues  is 
all  argument  for  God  and  religion. 

4.  But  surely  the  external  evidences  of  Christianity  are 

sufficient  to  command  assent? 

They  have  their  force  ; but  the  Gospel  itself  does  not 
appeal  to  them  alone.  We  are  witnesses  of  these 
things ; and  so  is  the  Holy  Ghost ^ Whom  God  hath 
given  to  them  that  obey  Him,  The  testimonies  of  God  and 
man  meet. 

5.  What  external  witness  of  man  is  here  meant? 

The  testimony  borne  to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  as 
following  the  atoning  death  and  preceding  the  ascension. 

6.  How  does  the  Holy  Spirit  attest  this? 

(i)  By  for  ever  enshrining  in  the  record  and  protecting 


48  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith, 


and  commending  to  acceptance  the  maiiy  proofs  of  the  resur- 
rection which  were  given  to  a great  number  of 
Actsi.3.  honest  and  trustworthy  witnesses:  whose  testi- 

monies, calmly  considered,  are  consistent  and  unimpeachable. 

(2)  By  confirming  the  evidence  of  the  Lord’s  risen  life 
experimentally  in  the  fulfilment  of  His  promise  of  an  abiding 
spiritual  influence  as  its  result. 

(3)  By  raising  on  the  faith  of  His  resurrection  the 
Christian  church,  with  its  sacraments  and  its  Lord’s  day  and 
its  permanent  worship. 

7.  How  is  it  then  that  self-evidencing  light  has  failed  to 

convince  very  many  sincere  doubters? 

The  process  by  which  conviction  of  truth  passes  through 
assent  into  confident  trust  is  tracked  only  by  omniscience.  If 
the  soul  is  sincere  before  God,  the  inquiry  must  lead  to  Christ: 
if  it  do  not,  there  must  be  some  fatal  flaw,  though  undiscernible 
, , ...  by  man.  For  He  Himself  has  said  : Every  one  that 

37.  ..  ts  of  the  Euth  heareth  My  voice.  And  again  : Ij  any 
John  vii.  17.  willeth  to  do  His  will,,  he  shall  know  of  the 

teaching,,  whether  it  be  of  God,  or  I speak  from  Myself, 

8.  Is  not  the  objection  of  the  Pharisees  to  this  an  irre- 

sistible instinct  of  the  logical  understanding  ? 

In  reference  to  every  other  claim  but  Christ’s  it  is.  But 
when  they  said.  Thou  hearest  witness  of  thyself : thy  witness  is 
johnviii.i»,  true,  it  was  w'hile  His  words  were  in  their  ears, 
12, 18.  ‘ / am  the  light  of  the  world:  he  that  folloiveth  Me 

shall  not  walk  in  the  darkness.  Still  He  cries  : I am  He  that 
BEARETH  WITNESS  OF  MySELF. 

9.  What  is  our  Lord’s  special  testimony  as  to  the  Spirit  ? 

After  having  said  above.  Every  one  that  hath  heard  from 
the  Father,  and  hath  learned,  cometh  unto  Me,  He  closed  by 
, , . saying  that  the  Advocate,  the  Spirit,  when  He  is 

John  xiv.  8,  come.  Will  coiivict  the  world  in  respect  oj  sin,  ana  of 
righteousness,  and  of  judgment ; of  sin  because  they 
believe  not  on  Me  I Christianity  never  appeals  to  any  man  and 
leaves  him  unconvicted,  though  it  may  leave  him  seemingly 
unconvinced. 


The  Inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture. 


49 


Chapter  III. 

gttspifaliott  of  <^oIs  ^cripluro. 

§ 1.  inspiration. 

1.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  term  inspiration? 

The  inbreathing  of  God  (^€09,  Tn/eo)),  and  the  result  of  it. 
In  the  classics  it  is  used  of  wisdom  and  dreams  2Tim.  m. 
as  given  to  man.  In  our  sacred  writings  it  is  only 
once  found  : Trao-a  ypa</>^  ^eoTTvcvo-Tos,  giving  a great  truth  its 
final  expression. 

2.  Do  we  find  there  any  definition  of  it  ? 

(1)  Its  nature,  method  of  operation  and  limits  are  nowhere 
defined:  a fact  of  considerable  importance  in  our  inquiry. 

(2)  But  there  are  many  expressions  which  help  ^ pet.  i.  21. 

us  to  understand  it.  For  instance,  as  to  influence  on  Numb.  xxiv. 
the  mind,  the  prophets  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  2Chron.  xv. 
the  Holy  Ghost ; The  haiid  or  The  word  or  the  Spirit  ^ ^ ^ 

of  the  Lord  is  said  to  come  upon  men ; and  David  Matt.  xxh. 
in  the  Spirit  called  the  Son  his  Lord. 

3.  Do  these  passages  limit  inspiration  to  ofiicial  utterances  ? 

Not  entirely  ; but  we  gather  that  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit  on  speakers  and  writers  of  God’s  will  is  distinguished 
clearly  from  His  influence,  entrance  and  indwelling  for 
personal  salvation.  There  is  always  something  special  in  it. 

4.  May  we  then  refer  inspiration  to  both  speaking  and 

writing  ? 

The  two  are  very  strictly  connected.  Our  Lord  illustrates 
this  when  in  one  sentence  He  speaks  of  Your  law,  and  says 
that  7he  word  of  God  came,  and  The  scripture  cannot  . u 

77  / Oil  1 Ti  ohn  X.  34, 

be  broken.  So  do  the  two  later  cardinal  texts.  St.  35. 

Paul  speaks  of  all  scripture  or  every  scripture  as 
mspired  of  God,  referring  to  the  sacred  writings  of  the  pre- 


50  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faiih. 


vious  verse,  and  thus  showing  that  all  and  every  really  must 
mean  the  same  thing.  St.  Peter  makes  no  prophecy  of  scripture 
2 Peter  i. '.io,  prophecy  the  same  : the  predictions  and  the 

2^-  books  containing  them  were  alike  a result  of  the 

powerful  impulse  of  the  Spirit. 

6.  Are  we  justified  then  in  connecting  inspiration  specifi- 
cally with  scripture  ? 

The  final  testimony  of  St.  Paul  has  led  to  the  conven- 
tional use  of  the  word  according  to  which  it  signifies  the 
specific  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  construction  and 
perpetuation  of  the  sacred  writings. 


§ 2.  Cuspi'n'ng  Spirit  anti  flje  Cnsptre?)  SSan'ters. 

1.  What  is  here  the  specific  ofiice  of  the  Holy  Spirit? 

(1)  In  the  unity  and  intercommunion  of  the  Holy  Trinity 
God  is  the  inspirer : Every  scripture  inspired  of  God.  Alen 
2 Tim.  iii.  i6.  Spake  froiu  Gody  though  being  moved  by  the  Holy 
2Pet.  1. 21.  Ghost.  All  the  acts  and  offices  of  the  Three  Persons 
severally  are  the  acts  and  offices  of  the  one  God. 

(2)  The  Son  is  the  source  and  sphere  of  all  revelation  ; 
iPet.  i.  ii.  and  still  the  Spirit  of  Christ  was  in  the  ancient 
John  XVI.  13.  prophets  and  is  the  Spirit  of  truth  in  the  apostles. 

(3)  Hence,  as  the  administrator  of  redemption  in  all  ages, 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  organ  of  Divine  communications  and  the 
inspirer  of  the  writers  or  the  writings  that  record  them. 

2,  How  does  the  New  Testament  speak  of  the  Spirit’s  inspi- 

ration in  the  Old  ? 


In  a style  which  assumes  that  He  both  speaks  and  writes 
in  the  ancient  oracles  : 

(1)  Our  Lord’s  solitary  testimony  to  the  speaking  is, 
How  then  doth  David  m the  Spirit  call  Him  Lord?  but  we 
Matt.  xxii.  must  connect  with  this,  The  scripture  cannot  be 

43-  broken  : every  voice  and  every  scripture  shares  the 

Jo  n X.  35.  prerogative  of  inviolability  with  this  voice  and  this 
particular  scripture. 

(2)  The  later  New  Testament  is  still  plainer.  After 
Pentecost  the  first  quotation  rurs:  That  the  scrip- 
ture should  be  fulfilled  which  the  Holy  Ghost  spake 


Acts  i.  16. 


The  Inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture. 


51 


before.  The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  most  copious  ; The 
Holy  Ghost  also  heareth  uoitness  to  us,  St.  Paul  Heb.  x.  15. 
says  that  the  Spirit  speaketh  expressly  : which  last  ^Tim.  iv.i. 
words  however  lead  naturally  to  another  question. 

3.  What  is  the  evidence  of  the  continued  inspiration  of  the 

Spirit  as  found  still  in  the  New  Testament  ? 

It  mainly  rests  upon  our  Lord’s  official  promise  spoken  to 
the  apostles  as  witnesses  : the  Holy  Spirit  shall  teach  you  all 
things,,  and  bring  to  your  remembrance  all  that  I said  John  xiv.  26. 
unto  you  ; He  shall  guide  you  into  all  the  truth  ; shall  ^3- 

declare  unto  you  the  things  that  are  to  come.  First  for  the  past, 
then  for  the  continuous  present,  and  lastly  for  all  the  future. 

4.  Do  these  sayings  without  violence  sustain  the  inspira- 

tion of  the  New-Testament  Scriptures? 

When  we  take  into  account  the  deep  importance  of  the 
occasion,  that  our  Lord  is  speaking  of  an  abiding  testimony, 
and  that  the  documents  of  the  new  covenant  precisely  answer 
to  the  respective  parts  of  the  triple  promise,  we  may  rest 
assured  that  they  do  without  demanding  further  proof. 

5.  How  do  they  thus  answer  that  threefold  promise? 

(1)  The  remembrance  of  the  past  is  found  in  the  Gospels. 

(2)  The  guidance  into  truth  is  the  leading  them  onward 
{o^y'^(T€L)  in  Christ  the  way  (680s)  to  all  develop-  joha  xiv.e. 
ments  of  that  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus:  this  is  Eph.  iv.  21. 
strictly  exhibited  in  the  oral  and  written  teaching  of  the 
apostles. 

(3)  The  coming  things  are  recorded  in  the  prophetic  parts 
of  the  New  Testament,  which  are  interwoven  with  the  whole: 
the  mystery  is  said  to  be  made  known  by  the  scrip-  Rom.xvi.26. 
tures  of  the  prophets.  In  the  last  days  also  the  testi-  Eev.  xix.  10. 
mony  of  Jesus  is  the  spirit  (as  it  were  from  the  Spirit)  of  prophecy, 

6.  What  analogy  is  there  between  the  methods  of  inspira- 

tion in  the  Old  and  in  the  New  economies? 

The  direct  communications  from  the  '^Vord,  the  sugges- 
tions of  the  Spirit,  the  dreams  and  visions,  the  com-  ex.  xvii.  14, 
mandment  to  write,  are  as  a whole  and  severally  Rev.  i.  19. 
the  same  in  both. 

3* 


52  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


7.  Do  all  these  testimonies  help  towards  a theory? 

Only  to  a limited  extent.  They  teach,  however,  that 
inspiration  did  not  make  the  speakers  and  writers  merely 
mechanical  instruments  ; that  in  many  instances  the  very  words 
were  given  ; that  in  all  cases  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  guided 
the  apostles’  reasonings  and  their  general  applications  of 
truth  ; and  that  the  testimony  to  the  Lord’s  life,  or  the  early 
distinct  Gospels,  were  arranged  under  a special  superintendence 
of  the  Spirit  which  we  may  suppose  to  have  been  exceedingly 
minute.  Precisely  the  same — no  more  and  no  less — may  be 
said  of  the  framework  of  the  Old  Testament. 

8.  Do  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  manifest  any  con- 

sciousness of  this  inspiration? 

They  show  it  precisely  as  the  ancient  writers  showed  it : 
by  the  assertion  of  an  authority  in  their  words  not  otherwise 
to  be  understood  ; by  hints  here  and  there  which  are  full  of 
significance  ; and  by  the  uniform  majesty  of  the  whole. 

9.  Give  instances  in  illustration  of  this. 

St.  Luke  records  the  promise  of  oral  inspiration  : The 
Holy  Spirit  shall  teach  you  in  that  very  hour  what  ye  ought  to 
say  : compare  this  with  his  discourses  of  St.  Peter,  St. 
Luke  XU.  12.  Paul  in  the  Acts.  St.  Peter  speaks 

of  the  new  revelation  as  making  the  old  more  sure ; as 
containing  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  and  Saviour  through 
2 Pet.  i.  ig,  your  apostles  f one  of  whom,  St.  Paul,  approved  the 
iii.2,  i6.  wisdom  given  him  m all  his  epistles^  which  are 
classed  with  the  other  scriptures-  St.  John  closes  the  New 
Rev  i 10  2 Testament  by  two  notes  : I was  in  the  Spirit.,  the 
ig.  ’ ’ same  John  who  bare  witness^  and  was  commanded, 
I John  V.  7.  therefore ; and,  remembering  the  Lord’s 

promise  fulfilled  in  himself,  gave  the  important  testimony.  It 
is  the  Spirit  that  bear eth  witfiess^  because  the  Spirit  is  the  truth. 

10.  What  is  to  be  said  of  the  inspiration  of  St.  Paul,  who 

so  largely  contributed  to  the  New  Testament? 

Without  applying  to  his  own  writings  the  word  he 
applies  to  the  ancient  scriptures,  he  writes  with  precisely 


The  Inspiration  of  Holy  Scripiure. 


53 


the  same  authority  as  theirs.  He  stood  in  a special  relation  to 
both  the  Revealer  and  the  Inspirer.  He  delivered  to  the 
churches  that  which  also  he  received  of  the  Lord ; and  when 
bespoke  of  that  concerning  which  he  had  7io  com-  iCor. xv.3. 
mandment  of  the  Lord  he  could  still  say,  L think  1C0r.vii.40. 
that  I also  have  the  Spirit  of  God,  If  any  writer  was  God- 
inbreathed,  he  more. 

11.  Does  St.  Paul  give  any  help  towards  a theory? 

He  illustrates  everywhere  the  principles  already  laid  down. 
We  perceive  that  he  had  special  and  repeated  communications 
of  direct  suggestion,  in  which  revelation  and  inspiration  are 
one;  that  he  uses  not  words  which  man's  wisdom  i cor. ii.  13, 
teacheth,,  hut  which  the  Spirit  teacheth,,  when  unfold- 
ing  the  hidden  mystery  that  God  revealed  through  the  Spirit ; 
and  that  he  always  retained  his  individuality  of  thought, 
diction  and  style. 

12.  Why  is  not  the  gift  or  charism  of  inspiration 

mentioned  where  the  dispensations  of  the 
Spirit  are  enumerated? 

Because  it  was  not  peculiar  to  the  Christian  economy. 

13.  But,  on  the  whole,  do  we  not  make  the  Bible  prove  its 

own  inspiration  by  declaring  it? 

Undoubtedly  we  do.  But  its  petitio  principii  is  abun- 
dantly justified  by  the  Holy  Spirit’s  influence  on  every  one 
who  hears  these  speakers  and  reads  these  writers  with  desire 
to  know  and  do  the  will  of  God.  Never  man  so  spake. 

§ 3.  2Tf)e  Scriptures  of  Inspiration. 

1.  What  names  are  given  to  the  documents  to  express  the 
idea  of  their  inspiration? 

(1)  Such  as  refer  to  them  as  oral  or  spoken  : generally, 

the  oracles  of  God^  which,  as  being  intrusted  to  the  ^ 

ancient  people,  must  mean  the  Old  Testament;  ActsVii.'ss. 
particularly,  as  used  of  individual  passages,  living 
oracles^  or  the  word  of  God, 

(2)  As  written,  they  are  the  scripture  f he  sacred  2Tim.iii. 
writings.  This  is  St.  Paul’s  last  term  ; but  he  had  *5. 16. 


54  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


Spoken  of  the  old  covenant  as%read,  and  from  that  sprang  the 

2 Cor  iii  i rnodem  distinction  of  the  two  testaments : the  words 
2 or.m.  14.  same  in  the  Greek. 

2.  How  is  tlie  term  inspired  applied  to  them? 

As  written  by  inspired  men  ; but  also  as  having  in  them 
an  inbreathed  and  permanent  power  of  life. 

3.  Does  St.  Paul’s  word  bear  both  these  meanings? 

The  word  God-inbreathed  might  seem  purposely  chosen 
to  combine  them. 

4.  The  scriptures  being  thus  inspired,  what  character  does 

this  of  necessity  stamp  on  them  ? 

(1)  They  must  needs  have  plenary  authority  as  the  vehicle 
of  Divine  revelations  sufficient,  that  is,  in  every  province. 

(2)  Also  they  cannot  be  less  than  a certain  standard  ot 
faith  and  practice  and  hope. 

(3)  They  must  be  marked  off  from  all  other  literature  as 
alone  containing  Divine  words  and  Divine  writings. 

(4)  And,  finally,  their  inspiration  may  be  expected  to 
commend  itself  as  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  who  still  lives 
and  moves  and  has  His  being  in  them. 

6.  Inspiration  being  predicated  only  of  the  Old  Testament, 
can  the  writers  of  the  New  be  included? 

We  are  now  dealing  only  with  inspiration,  and  it  has  been 
seen  that  the  Lord  promised  to  His  apostles  this  specific  gift. 
As  to  the  New-Testament  books  which  may  claim  it,  this  is  a 
question  belonging  to  the  Canon  of  Scripture, 

§ 4.  I^iston'ral. 

1.  Is  the  idea  of  inspiration  limited  to  our  sacred  books  ? 

Many  of  the  religions  of  the  world  have  sacred  books  : 
recording  a general  faith  in  the  inspiration  of  higher  powers  as 
acting  on  the  minds  of  poets,  soothsayers  and  lawgivers. 
But  the  scriptural  idea  in  its  purity  and  grandeur  is  unknown 
to  them  ; nor  is  there  more  than  a faint  analogy. 

2.  What  was  the  faith  of  Judaism  on  this  subject? 

Admitting  degrees  of  inspiration,  both  the  ancient  and 


The  Inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture. 


55 


the  more  modern  Jews  maintained  a high  theory  of  the  plenary 
and  verbal  inspiration  of  their  holy  writings 

3.  Did  the  early  Christian  church  maintain  this? 

(1)  The  reigning  view  throughout  the  patristic  ages  was 
precisely  that  uf  the  Jews,  from  whom  they  received  it, 

(2)  But  germs  of  a laxer  theory  appear : the  prophetic 
inspiration  was  elevated  to  the  disparagement  of  that  of  some 
books  not  written  by  prophets  ; and  the  human  factor  in  the 
Bible  was  by  degrees  made  more  and  more  prominent, 

4.  How  was  the  subject  treated  in  mediaeval  times? 

(1)  Gradually  two  concurrent  inspirations  were  estab- 
lished, that  of  scripture  and  that  of  tradition  : the  former  in 
the  Bible,  the  latter  in  the  teaching  church.  These  the 
Council  of  Trent  decreed  to  be  of  equal  and  united  authority. 

(2)  Meanwhile  two  opposite  tendencies  were  evident : a 
few  scholastic  divines  elaborated  an  almost  mechanical  theory  ; 
while  the  mystical  schoolmen,  like  the  mystics  of  all  ages, 
absorbed  the  direct  influence  of  the  inspiring  Spirit  in  the 
high  intuition  of  contemplative  faith. 

6,  Wbat  was  the  point  of  view  at  the  Reformation  ? 

(1)  It  was  the  authority  rather  than  the  inspiration  of 
scripture  that  ruled  at  the  outset  : Luther  and  Calvin  were 
lax  as  to  the  admixture  of  the  inspired  and  uninspired  ele- 
ments ; the  Lutheran  formularies  oscillated  between  an  ex- 
tremely high  and  a comparatively  low  view  ; the  Calvinistic 
or  Reformed,  however,  were  generally  strict  in  their  theory. 

(2)  The  Arminian  divines  limited  inspiration  to  matters 
of  faith  : in  fact  making  it  one  with  revelation  proper,  and 
leaving  all  the  rest  to  general  direction  or  superintendence. 

(3)  None  of  the  Reformation  formularies  decided  on  th^ 
question  of  verbal  inspiration,  as  dictating  the  very  words. 

6.  What  form  did  this  last  question  take  in  theology  ? 

Most  admitting  that  the  very  words  were  sometimes 


56  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


suggested,  the  thought  arose  that,  taking  all  the  facts  into 
account,  it  was  better  to  assume  instead  of  a verbal  a plenary 
inspiration,  this  however  covering  many  different  degrees. 

7.  What  bearing  has  the  theory  of  degrees  of  inspiration 

exerted  on  the  doctrine  ? 

Much  in  all  its  history  ; though  the  theory  itself  like 
its  application  is  indeterminate. 

(1)  The  ancient  Jews  maintained  a distinction  between  the 
inspiration  of  Moses,  who  spake  with  Jehovah  face  to  face,  and 
that  of  the  later  prophets  and  writers  of  the  devotional  parts 
of  scripture  ; but  they  did  not,  like  their  later  descendants  as 
represented  by  Maimonides,  make  any  difference  in  the  result. 

(2)  Christian  writers  in  all  communions  have  more  or  less 
adopted  the  same  thought  : the  inspiration  of  suggestion  foi 
express  revelations  ; of  elevation,  as  qualifying  the  receivers 
and  writers;  of  general  superintendency,  for  the  arrangement 
and  as  it  were  editorial  organisation  of  the  whole. 

(3)  But,  inasmuch  as  the  result  of  all  the  Spirit’s  methods 
is  incorporated  in  one  volume,  it  is  evidently  His  mind  that  no 
such  distinction  should  be  capable  of  verification. 

(4)  Meanwhile,  He  who  said  that  It  is  the  Spirit  that 
qiiickeneth^  said  also  The  words  that  I have  spoken  unto  you  are 

spirit  and  are  life.  Neither  can  truth  be  given 
John  VI.  63.  received  altogether  and  literally 

without  words. 

8.  How  does  the  modern  critical  spirit  treat  the  question  ? 

It  attacks  the  doctrine  in  two  ways  : first,  by  granting 
inspiration,  but  taking  away  its  essentially  distinctive  cha- 
racter ; secondly,  by  denying  inspiration,  on  the  ground  of 
internal  unworthiness  in  the  fabric  of  the  documents. 

9.  In  what  way  may  the  former  be  met  ? 

(1)  By  appealing  to  scripture  itself,  which,  though  it  does 
not  define  inspiration,  expressly  declares  it  to  be  or  implies 
that  it  is  a specific  influence  of  the  Spirit  on  those  who  spoke 
or  wrote  the  Divine  oracles.  God-breathed  can  mean  nothing 
less  than  this. 

(2)  As  against  those  unbelievers  who  reduce  it  to  a level 


The  Inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture.  57 


with  the  exhibitions  of  human  genius,  this  is  still  the  only 
answer.  But  it  suggests  that  the  advocates  of  the  true  doctrine 
should  in  their  practice  strictly  limit  the  term  to  its  right  use. 

(3)  It  holds  also  against  a large  class  of  Christians,  who 
make  inspiration  the  ordinary  illumination  of  the  Spirit  raised 
to  a higher  and  purer  force. 

10.  Of  what  kinds  are  the  latter  objection  ? 

Either  it  asserts  that  the  matter  of  scripture  is  unworthy 
of  the  inspiration  of  God  ; or  that  the  forms  in  which  it  is 
given  by  their  internal  inconsistencies  discredit  the  doctrine. 

11.  The  former  evidently  concerns  the  scripture  as  the  rule 

of  faith  : how  can  the  latter  be  met  ? 

By  analysing  and  carefully  considering  each  objection  : a 
duty  incumbent  on  Christian  learning,  and  one  which  the 
growth  of  Biblical  literature  makes  constantly  more  easy 
and  more  profitable.  There  is  a specific  apology  of  the  Bible. 

12.  If,  for  instance,  it  is  said  that  an  inspired  volume 

cannot  contradict  science  ? 

The  answer  is  that  it  never  does  contradict  science  either 
intellectual  or  physical.  Where  they  seem  to  come  in  collision, 
it  is  the  interpretation  of  one  or  the  other  that  is  at  fault. 

13.  If  it  is  said  that  scripture  does  not  quote  scripture 

as  if  its  very  words  were  inspired  ? 

(1)  The  reply  is  that  this  affects  only  an  extreme  theory 
of  verbal  inspiration:  one  pertinaciously  holding  fast  the  letter 
as  if  the  words  were  as  eternal  as  the  truths  they  carry. 

(2)  The  Divine  Spirit  may  surely  change  His  own  words. 

(3)  Undoubtedly  the  Lord  and  His  apostles  sometimes  cite 
the  Septuagint  as  the  current  and  as  it  were  authorised 
version  : to  Whose  authority  we  must  bow  without  question. 

(4)  But  there  are  many  quotations  which  show  such 

intention  in  the  change  as  confirms  the  true  doctrine.  For 
instance,  the  prophet  said,  Sanctify  the  Lord  of  hosts  isa.  viii.  13. 
Himself ; the  apostle  says,  Sanctify  in  yoitr  hearts  * ^5 

Christ  as  I^ord, 


58  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


(5)  If  we  affirm  that  the  Spirit  may  have  been  pleased  to 
transmit  different  versions  of  the  same  sentences,  or  that  He 
may  have  given  words  by  inspiration  which  were  then  left  to 
the  custody  of  time  and  of  various  transcription : even  this 
cannot  be  charged  with  absurdity. 

14.  How  far  do  the  modern  terms  plenary  and  dynamical 

solve  these  difficulties? 

Very  imperfectly.  Both  words  are  vague,  having  more  of 
the  semblance  than  of  the  reality  of  definition.  If  plenary 
signifies  that  the  power  of  the  Spirit  is  in  every  part  of  the 
Bible,  adapting  itself  to  the  subject  and  securing  that  the 
doctrine  shall  be  sound  and  the  history  true,*  it  may  be 
accepted  as  a tribute  to  the  Divine  element.  If  dynamical 
signifies  that  the  human  writers  are  always  actuated  by  the 
Spirit  as  thinking,  examining,  collating,  witnessing  and  reason- 
ing men,  it  may  be  accepted  as  a tribute  to  the  human  element. 
The  combination  of  plenary  and  dynamical  is  hard  ; but  it  is 
not  impossible. 

15.  What  is  the  sum  of  all  ? 

(1)  The  Christian  receives  what  are  commonly  called  the 
canonical  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  as  the  mind 
and  word  of  God  given  by  His  Holy  Spirit  through  the  in- 
strumentality of  holy  men. 

(2)  He  must  have  a strong  faith  in  the  watchful  providence 
of  the  Spirit  over  the  work  of  His  own  hands  : whether  as  to 
the  unknown  history  of  ages  past,  the  present  with  its  assaults 
and  objections  innumerable,  or  the  unknown  future  of  truth 
in  the  world. 

(3)  He  must  expect  that  Spirit  to  breathe  through  the 
oracles  within  his  soul  His  own  effectual  demonstration  of  the 
living  and  lifegiving  power  of  the  holy  oracles. 

(4)  And,  in  the  proportion  that  his  faith  forms  for  him  a 
high  theory  of  the  inspiration  of  the  sacred  writings  will  be 
his  own  delight  in  them  and  sanctification  through  their 
influence. 


The  Canon  of  Scripture. 


59 


Chapter  IV. 

®I)c  @anott  of  ^cripfuro. 

1.  What  does  this  subject  embrace? 

The  question  of  what  constitutes  the  collection  of  the 
sacred  books  of  revelation  : the  Old  Testament  and  the  New. 

2.  How  is  the  term  Canon  of  Scripture  used  ? 

The  term  canon  (/cavcov)  means  a rule  or  testing  rod.  The 
scriptural  books  are  those  to  which  the  test  has  been  applied. 
They  are  also  the  canon  or  resting  rule  of  faith  ; but  it  is  the 
former  meaning  we  now  consider.  The  books  were  canonical 
or  canonised,  before  they  became  the  canon  or  rule  of  faith. 

3.  How  is  the  canon  related  to  inspiration  ? 

Inspiration  concerns  the  Divine  influence  on  the  writers  ; 
but  the  determination  of  the  canon  concerns  the  number  of 
the  writers,  and  their  claim  to  be  held  as  inspired. 

4.  Is  this  a question  outside  of  the  books  themselves  ? 

Not  altogether  so.  Whatever  tests  were  applied  were 
derived  first  from  the  books,  and  one  part  of  scripture  very 
much  helps  to  give  canonical  authority  to  another. 

§ 1.  ©anon  of  tte  ©lU  ^Testament. 

1.  What  do  Christians  understand  by  this  canon  ? 

The  Hebrew  text  of  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the 
Hagiographa  or  holy  writings,  as  our  Lord  received  and 
approved  it  and  gave  it  to  His  disciples  and  the  future  church. 

2.  Is  this  the  only  ground  of  our  acceptance? 

The  circumstances  under  which  the  canon  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  finally  closed  are  very  obscure  in  history.  Our 


6o  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith, 


Saviour’s  authority  is  enough  for  those  who  cannot  study  the 
subject,  and  the  best  evidence  for  those  who  can. 

3.  From  what  is  the  Hebrew  canon  distinguished  ? 

(i)  From  the  Alexandrian  canon  of  the  Septuagint — a 
Greek  translation  of  the  third  century  before  Christ — which 
includes  some  books  not  in  the  Hebrew  ; and  (2)  from  the 
Apocrypha,  as  these  last  additions  are  now  named  : the  term 
apocrypha  signifying  hidden,”  in  a sense  of  discredit. 

4.  Has  the  Saviour  authenticated  every  individual  book? 

Not  every  book  as  such  : but  He  quoted  the  scriptures  as 
they  were  generally  quoted.  In  the  New  Testament  all  the 
books  save  four  are  referred  to  as  sacred. 


6.  Has  He  directly  or  indirectly  sanctioned  the  canon  as 
such  ? 


The  three  main  divisions — the  law  of  MoseSj  and  the 
Prophets^  and  the  Psalms — imply  what  is  meant  by  the  canon. 
Lukexxiv  charge  the  corrupters  of  the  interpre- 

44.  ‘ tation  with  corrupting  the  text  itself.  Though  the 

Matt.  XV.  6.  Septuagint  is  often  used,  the  apocryphal  books  are 
never  directly  quoted. 


6.  Does  the  Old  Testament  itself  give  any  support? 

From  the  first  reference  to  the  Booh  of  the  law  onwards 
there  is  reference  to  one  Book  of  the  Lord ; as  distinguished 
Deut.  xxxi.  from  all  other  literature.  After  the  captivities  the 
Is? xxxiv.  liniits  of  this  were  defined  (b.c.  450-300)  probably  by 
ik  a council  of  scribes. 


§ 2.  Keb3='0^estamrnt  Ctanon. 

1.  What  parallel  is  there  between  the  old  and  the  new 
canons  ? 

As  the  old  covenant  had  its  documents,  so  has  the  new. 
As  the  revelation  of  truth  had  been  begun  by  oracles  and 
writings,  so  might  it  be  expected  to  end.  As  the  ancient 
church  had  its  books  of  statutes,  devotions  and  prophecies,  we 
might  anticipate  that  the  new  would  have  the  same.  The  New 
Testament  is  in  many  respects  the  counterpart  of  the  Old. 


The  Canon  of  Scripture 


6i 


2.  Does  the  New  Testament  itself  profess  to  constitute  a 

second  body  of  holy  writings  ? 

Not  directly.  There  are  many  signs,  however,  in  almost 
all  the  documents  that  the  writers  were  writing  authoritatively 
and  for  permanence  : signs  as  plain  as  in  the  Old  Testament. 

3.  How  does  this  bear  on  the  meaning  of  canon  ? 

(1)  The  writers  appeal  to  their  credentials:  inviting  the 
application  of  the  canon,  or  testing  rule,  to  themselves. 

(2)  They  also  write  as  the  arbiters  and  final  authorities  in 
doctrine:  applying  their  writings  as  the  canon  or  testing  rule  of 
all  things,  with  an  authority  from  which  they  allow  no  appeal. 

(3)  These  two  meanings  of  the  word  canon  point  onwards 
to  the  Rule  of  Faith. 

§ 3. 

1.  How  was  the  Old  Testament  treated  in  the  early 

Christian  church  ? 

Both  our  Lord  and  His  apostles  largely  used  the  Greek 
version : almost  as  if  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  like  the  temple, 
had  lost  their  prerogative.  But  they  never  quoted  the  apoc- 
ryphal additions  ; and  these  were  very  hesitatingly  admitted 
into  such  of  the  early  lists  as  mentioned  them. 

2.  What  was  the  history  of  the  formation  of  the  New- 

Testament  canon  ? 

Three  centuries  were  occupied  in  defining  its  exact  limits  ; 
though  the  volume  as  a whole,  as  we  now  hold  it,  was  accepted 
and  reverenced  in  the  second  century.  Doubts  existed  as  to  a 
few  books  which  some  accepted  and  a few  which  some  rejected. 

3.  What  tests  were  applied  and  by  whom  ? 

(1)  The  tests  were  apostolical  authorship  or  authorisation  ; 
and,  in  the  case  of  the  Homologoumena,  all  the  churches  were 
historical  vouchers  as  it  were  with  one  consent. 

(2)  In  the  case  of  the  Antilegomena,  difficulties  arose 
which  have  been  felt  more  or  less  to  the  present  time.  The 
test  here  was  mainly  the  common  Rule  of  faith,”  which 
decided  the  gradual  rejection  of  certain  apocryphal  books,  with 
the  writings  of  some  apostolical  fathers,  and,  as  combined  with 


62  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


the  testimony  of  individual  churches,  secured  the  gradual 
acceptance  of  the  epistles  which  had  been  suspected. 

4.  How  stood  the  question  of  the  canon  at  the  Reformation  ? 

(1)  The  Mediaeval  churches  had  accepted  the  Old- 
Testament  Apocrypha  : they  were  included  by  the  Council 
of  Trent  and  by  a later  decision  of  the  Greek  church. 
Lutheranism,  like  the  Anglican  church,  admitted  parts  of 
them  for  public  reading ; but,  as  they  were  never  in  the 
Hebrew  canon,  present  internal  evidence  of  being  uninspired, 
and  have  no  place  in  the  history  of  redemption,  their  canonical 
authority  has  been  rejected  by  Protestants. 

(2)  The  churches  of  the  Reformation  laid  great  stress  on 
the  internal  witness  of  the  Spirit  in  their  decision  as  to  what 
must  be  included  in  Holy  Scripture.  The  books  that  lay  under 
doubt  were  called  deutero-canonical  and  placed  at  the  close  of 
the  New  Testament. 

(3)  The  Arminians,  like  the  Reformed  churches,  received 
the  Bible  as  we  hold  it : much  on  the  general  and  indefinite 
principle  of  the  Anglican  article,  which  speaks  cautiously  but 
truly  and  wisely  of  those  canonical  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  of  whose  authority  was  never  any  doubt  in  the 
church.^^  The  questionable  books  were  not  generally  doubted. 

6.  What  are  the  questions  involved  in  the  modern  contro- 
versy as  to  the  canon? 

(1)  The  determination  of  the  genuineness  of  the  book : 
as  being  the  very  document  itself  that  was  received  from  the 
beginning,  as  from  its  professed  author. 

(2)  The  grave  investigation  of  the  authenticity  of  the 
records,  or  their  trustworthiness  as  being  true  deliverers  of 
what  they  profess  to  hand  down. 

(3)  Only  the  former  strictly  belongs  to  the  subject  of  the 
canon  : the  latter  belongs  to  the  Rule  of  Faith. 

6.  Is  there  any  real  difference  between  these  ? 

There  is  actually  in  modern  times  only  one  inquiry  as 
to  any  document  : its  worthiness  of  credit.  Much  of  the 
Bible  is  thought  to  be  untrustworthy  or  spurious  as  pro- 
fessing to  come,  for  instance  from  Moses,  Isaiah,  Daniel,  John 


The  Canon  of  Scripture. 


63 


the  apostle,  Simon  Peter,  and  untrustworthy  or  fictitious  in 
its  representation  of  fact.  The  whole  is  only  one  impeach- 
ment ; and  challenges  the  authority  of  revelation  generally. 

7.  How  does  the  uncertainty  of  the  text  affect  the  question  ? 

We  must  accept  these  facts:  (i)  that  it  has  not  pleased 
the  Author  of  scripture  to  preserve  its  autographs ; (2)  that 
He  has  committed  its  books  to  the  care  of  His  church,  which 
both  in  Jewish  and  in  Christian  ages  has  watched  over  them 
with  great  care  ; (3)  that  the  Holy  Spirit  Himself  has  exercised 
a special  providence  over  their  transmission,  translation,  and 
exposition  ; (4)  and  that  the  science  of  Biblical  Criticism  has 
a prosperous  function  in  deciding  as  to  larger  interpolations 
and  smaller  variations  in  the  text. 

8.  But  surely  the  uncertainty  of  the  text  must  throw  some 

disparagement  on  the  canon  and  its  inspiration  ? 

Here  it  is  important  to  make  some  distinctions. 

(1)  When  the  question  touches  the  entire  fabric  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  an  attempt  is  made  to  show  that  the 
Pentateuch  and  the  subsequent  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
were,  like  the  writings  of  the  prophets  themselves,  productions 
of  a later  age  and  records  of  an  imaginary  history,  it  becomes 
vital  : unless  that  kind  of  criticism  is  discredited  the  canon 
must  be  given  up.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  attempts  to 
reduce  the  genuine  New  Testament  to  a very  few  original 
documents.  As  to  these  attacks  on  the  canon,  the  student 
may  be  sure  that  the  further  he  advances  in  his  study  the  more 
surely  will  he  know  the  certainty  concernmg  the 

things  in  the  faith  of  which  he  has  been  brought  up. 

(2)  There  are  some  doubtful  points  as  to  the  canon — not 
affecting  the  inspiration  or  canonical  authority  of  scripture 
generally — which  must  be  left  or  may  be  left  to  the  conscien- 
tious private  judgment  of  the  inquirer. 

(3)  As  to  the  exact  text  of  the  two  Testaments,  there  is 
little  hope  of  its  being  recovered  till  it  will  be  wanted  no 
longer.  Meanwhile,  we  are  gradually  and  surely  approxi- 
mating to  exactitude,  and  the  variations  that  defy  decision  do 
not  affect  in  any  degree  the  fundamentals  of  the  truth. 


64  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


Chapter  V. 

©anott  as  llulc  of 

1.  What  is  meant  by  this  application  of  the  word? 

The  Canonical  Scripture  is  here  viewed  as  itself  the  Canon 
to  measure  and  determine  the  value  of  all  knowledge  and  of 
all  other  Christian  literature. 

2.  What  range  of  subjects  is  embraced? 

We  have  to  ask  in  what  sense,  and  under  what  conditions, 
scripture  is  a final  authority ; and  then  consider  the  bearings 
of  this  on  historical  controversy. 

§ 1.  of  iTaitt  Supreme  anH  5ole* 

1.  With  what  latitude  is  this  to  be  taken  ? 

(1)  The  Bible  is  the  standard  of  what  is  to  be  believed  ; 
the  directory  of  duty  ; and  the  charter  of  Christian  promise : 
in  other  words,  of  faith,  morals,  and  privileges. 

(2)  But  as  these  together  constitute  the  substance  of  the 
Christian  verity  to  be  accepted,  all  may  be  summed  up  under 
the  one  common  head  of  the  Rule  of  Faith. 

2.  What  is  the  testimony  of  scripture  itself? 

It  everywhere  assumes  to  be  a final  authority : To  the  law 
and  to  the  testimony!  Do  ye  not  therefore  err^  because  ye 
Isa.  viii.  20.  know  not  the  scriptures  P It  appeals  to  itself  always, 
Markxii.24.  and  never  to  anything  else  save  for  confirmation  of 
its  own  words. 

3.  Does  not  all  this  refer  to  the  Old  Testament  and  the 

dispensation  of  the  letter? 

(i)  The  same  reason  which  demanded  a final  standard  in 
the  old  economy  demanded  it  much  more  in  the  new : the  new 


The  Canon  of  Scripture, 


65 


containing  not  only  the  infallible  interpretation  of  the  old  but 
also  its  own  new  truth  of  supreme  importance. 

(2)  Hence  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  professedly 
give  the  mind  of  Christ  and  that  as  confirmed  imto  ^ .. 

us  by  them  that  heard.  They  are  added  to  the  other  Heb.  ii.  3. 
scriptures. 


2 Pet.  iii.  16. 


4.  Still,  all  this  is  only  their  own  witness  to  themselves  ? 

It  is  one  that  approves  itself  to  our  reason,  which  admits 
that  if  God  gives  a revelation  to  man  it  should  speak  authori- 
tatively, PERSPICUOUSLY,  and  sooner  or  later  to  all. 


§ 2.  J^tston'cal. 

1.  What  opponents  has  this  principle  to  withstand  ? 

If  we  omit  those  who  deny  a Divine  revelation  altogether, 
there  are  two  : the  adherents  of  Rationalism  at  one  extreme, 
and  those  of  Traditionalism  at  the  other. 

2.  How  does  Rationalism  object? 

It  either  makes  reason  the  basis  of  man^s  universal  religion, 
and  then  denies  that  any  one  class  of  sacred  books  can  be  its 
standard  ; or,  assenting  that  Christianity  is  the  absolute 
religion,  it  makes  reason  the  sole  arbiter  of  what  scripture 
means  or  must  mean,  thus  undermining  its  final  authority. 

3.  And  how  does  our  Rule  of  Faith  meet  this  ? 

(i)  By  conceding  to  reason  its  own  province,  as  the 
minister  of  faith  : a province  allowing  private  interpretation  to 
the  man  that  is  spiritual.  (2)  By  prescribing  its  j cor.  ii.  15. 
limits:  The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  ^ Cor.ii.  14. 
the  Spirit  of  God.  (3)  By  appealing  to  reason  itself,  which 
ought  to  admit  that  the  most  important  truths  in  a revelation 
from  heaven  concerning  spiritual  and  eternal  realities  must  be 
beyond  the  limits  of  reason,  whether  as  a discoverer  or  as  an 
interpreter. 

4.  What  is  Traditionalism  ? 

The  system  which  accepts  scripture  as  the  rule  of  faith, 
but  qualifies  this  in  two  ways  : first,  by  making  its  interpre- 
tation dependent  on  the  infallible  voice  of  the  church,  speaking 
through  its  representatives  ; and,  secondly,  by  establishing  the 


66  Christian  Revelation  and  the  Rule  of  Faith. 


co-ordinate  authority  of  an  oral  tradition  handed  down  from 
the  beginning  in  that  church. 

6.  And  how  does  our  Rule  of  Faith  meet  this  ? 

As  in  the  case  of  Rationalism,  (i)  By  conceding  the  great 
importance  of  tradition  in  its  own  place,  as  transmitting  the 
testimony  of  the  church  to  the  books  of  scripture  and  its  early 
interpretation  of  them.  (2)  By  denying  that  tradition  has 
ever  been  allowed  a place  co-ordinate  with  the  inspired  scrip- 
Matt  V tures.  Teaching  as  their  doctrines  the  precepts  of 

^ men : this  sentence  of  our  Lord  condemned  what 

afterwards  became  the  vast  fabric  of  the  Jewish  Talmud,  and 
forbids  any  Christian  imitation  of  it.  (3)  An  appeal  to  the 
results  of  the  principle  of  a double  standard  in  the  history  of 
the  ancient  church  is  its  most  effectual  condemnation  : decisions 
contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  and  contrary  to  each  other,  abound 

0.  What  is  the  relation  to  this  of  the  theory  of  development  ? 

This  theory  is  a modern  appendage  of  the  older  doctrine  of 
a continuous  authoritative  voice  in  the  church  : assuming  that, 
by  the  will  of  God,  truths  only  the  germs  of  which  are  found 
in  scripture  were  to  be  expanded  as  the  ages  passed.  But  an 
infallible  standard  would  never  leave  articles  of  necessary  faith 
in  germ ; that  notion  is  contradictory  to  the  principle  of  a rule 

7.  What  is  the  latest  development  of  this  ? 

The  decree  of  1870,  which  made  the  Pontiff  or  Bishop 
of  Rome  infallible  arbiter  in  every  matter  coming  before  him 
for  personal  decision  ex  cathedra. 

8.  What  objections  may  be  urged  against  the  general  prin- 

ciple that  the  Bible  is  the  sole  rule  of  faith  ? 

Only  such  objections  as  may  rather  be  turned  into  cautions ; 
such  as  the  differences  in  the  confessions  of  the  churches,  and 
the  irregularities  of  private  judgment. 

9.  And  what  is  to  be  said  as  to  these? 

(i)  That  the  rule  of  faith  is  only  the  standard  by  which 
all  confessions  are  to  be  tested.  (2)  That  as  to  the  essentials 
of  Christianity  there  is  a wide  range  of  evangelical  unanimity. 
(3)  That  the  individual  is  responsible  for  his  private  judgment, 
and  has  the  promise  of  the  Teaching  Spirit, 


BOOK  II. 

God. 


L THE  HOLY  TRINITY. 

II.  THE  DIVINE  ATTRIBUTES. 

III.  HISTORICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


4 


/! 

{ -i 

• (-i 

A 

-:iii 


■M 


The  Holy  Trinity. 


69 


BOOK  II. 

^ot>. 

^preli'mmairg. 

1.  What  is  God  in  the  scriptures  of  revelation  ? 

The  One  Being,  the  Source  of  all  existence,  Who  reveals 
Himself  by  names  and  attributes  and  works  which  belong  to 
Him  alone. 

2.  Is  there  difference  between  the  names  and  attributes  ? 

(1)  As  God  can  be  known  only  as  He  reveals  Himself,  His 
names  are  in  a certain  sense  attributes.  Elohim  is  God  as 
fulness  of  power  ; El-Shaddai  is  the  Almighty  ; El-  Gen.  xvii.  i. 
Elyon  the  Most  High,  the  Supreme  ; Adonai  is  the  Gen.xiv.  18. 
Lord  as  Master  ; Jehovah  is  absolute  and  self-existing  Being. 

(2)  Elohim,  ©60S,  and  Jehovah,  Kvpcosy  are  however  the 
preeminent  names  of  God  as  such. 

(3)  The  attributes  are  those  perfections,  whether  single  or 
manifold,  which  are  given  by  God  to  Himself,  that  by  them 
we  may  regulate  our  thoughts  concerning  His  infinite  and 
incomprehensible  nature. 

8.  Is  not  the  proof  of  God’s  being  a preliminary  ? 

No  : that  may  be  considered  in  historical  review  : 
here  we  must  believe  that  He  is. 

4.  Have  we  to  trace  a gradual  revelation  ? 

(1)  In  the  name  we  find  it:  God  and  Jehovah  in  the 
Old  Testament  become  in  the  New  the  Three-One,  ^ 

the  Most  Holy  Trinity.  By  this  name  He  had  not 
been  known.  Ex.  vi.3. 

(2)  In  the  attributes  there  is  no  development:  some  of 
them,  however,  such  as  justice  and  love,  are  revealed  in  new 
forms  and  manifestations. 

(3)  And  the  full  revelation  of  both  the  names  and  the 
attributes  of  God  is  connected  with  the  full  revelation  of  His 
works  in  creation,  providence  and  redemption. 


70 


God^ 


I. 

flriunc  ^ob. 

1.  On  what  ground  do  we  thus  begin  the  doctrine  of  God  ? 

It  is  well  for  us  to  begin  where  our  Lord  ends,  who  com- 
Matt.  xxviii.  Hiaiids  that  all  nations  should  be  baptised  into  the 
19-  Name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

2.  Is  this  then  His  final  revelation  of  God? 

Thus  our  Lord  will  have  all  the  nations  taught,  consum- 
mating all  former  and  partial  instruction  ; Baptising  them  into 
denotes  the  confession,  worship  and  service  of  Three  Persons 
in  the  Godhead  ; and  the  Name  assures  still  the  unity  of  those 
three  Persons,  or  the  essential  unity  of  God. 

3.  Should  not  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity  be  postponed 

until  questions  concerning  the  notion  of  God  and  His 
attributes  have  been  studied  ? 

To  us  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity  is  God.  We  should 
carry  this  to  the  attributes  and  other  revelations  as  the 
standard  of  all ; and  the  result  will  justify  our  so  doing. 

4.  This  being  so,  how  may  we  study  the  doctrine  ? 

By  shedding  the  light  of  our  Lord’s  revelation  on  the 
past ; by  considering  it  in  itself  as  the  final  doctrine  of  the 
Divine  Triunity  ; and  by  tracing  its  redemptional  develop- 
ment through  the  subsequent  Christian  scriptures. 

§ 1.  ^xinnt  GoD  in  tf)e  lEarlier  iXrbelation* 

1.  In  what  sense  may  we  seek  to  trace  this? 

By  marking  certain  mysterious  hints,  in  the  Divine  names 
and  manifestations  and  worship  and  prophecies,  which  reveal 
their  meaning  under  the  fuller  teaching  of  the  New  Testament. 

2.  Which  are  they  in  the  Divine  names? 

The  first  and  most  universal  term  Elohim  is  plural,  a 


The  Holy  Trinity. 


71 


peculiarity  of  the  Hebrew  form  of  the  word.  Jehovah  is  the 
name  by  which  God  revealed  Himself  to  sinful  and  redeemed 
man  : in  Genesis,  to  man  as  a race  ; in  Exodus,  to  the  people 
of  the  Mosaic  covenant;  and  in  the  New  Testament  as  the 
Triune  Jehovah.  The  mystery  of  the  Trinity  perhaps  lay  in 
the  form  of  the  word  Elohim  ; and  in  the  Divine  interpreta- 
tion of  the  word  Jehovah,  which  is  I am  and  I am  to  ...  ^ 

BE  WHAT  I AM  TO  BE.  This  God  says  of  Himself  ; 

man  puts  it  into  the  form  of  Yahveh,  He  is,  Jehovah,  or  Lord. 

3.  What  in  the  Divine  manifestations  ? 

In  the  earlier  books  of  the  Bible  the  appearances  of  God 
or  Jehovah,  the  Theophanies  as  they  are  called,  were  some- 
times in  the  form  of  angels  or  men.  Moses  spake  to  Jehovah 
face  to  face.  In  the  plains  of  Mamre  three  men 
appeared  to  Abram,  while  one  Lord  spake  to  him  ; 10.' 

but  one  Angel,  and  one  Man,  is  preeminent.  Of  ix!^xxiTi!2i. 
Him  Jehovah  said  My  Name  is  in  Him,  It  was  Gen.xxii.15, 
the  Angel  of  Jehovah  who  gave  Abraham  the  first  hos!  xii.  4, 
promise,  swearing  by  Myself,  With  Him  Jacob  5- 
wrestled  ; and  Hosea  says  that  this  Being  was  even  Jehovah^ 
God  of  hosts, 

4.  How  may  it  be  observed  in  the  ancient  worship  ? 

In  the  temple  the  glory  within  the  veil,  and  the  seven- 
branched  candlestick  outside,  waited  their  interpretation.  The 
levitical  benediction,  which  put  My  Name  upon  the 
children  of  Israel,,  distributed  that  name  in  a three-  27. 
fold  form.  And  the  doxology  was  Holy,,  holy,  holy  is 
the  Lord  of  hosts, 

5.  How,  lastly,  in  the  prophetic  hints  ? 

There  are  many  of  these.  In  Isaiah  we  read  The  Lord  God, 
and  His  Spirit,  hath  sent  Me,  the  future  Redeemer  , , ... 

of  men.  And  in  Zechariah  the  Spirit  of  grace  is  16. 
promised  by  Jehovah  to  lead  the  people  to  look  upon  ^ech.xn.io. 
Me  whom  they  have  pierced.  These  two  are  specimens  of  a style 
of  speech  that  suggested  to  ancient  Jewish  interpreters  the  dim 
outlines  of  our  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ; but  which  was  utterly 
incomprehensible  until  the  light  of  the  New  Testament  ex- 
plained it. 


72 


God. 


§ 2.  2Trmn(tg  of  tf)e  iSaptismal  ^Formula. 

1.  What  is  meant  by  Triunity  here  ? 

That  our  Lord,  the  final  Revealer,  still  gives  to  our  faith 
the  One  and  ancient  Name,  but  as  Three  in  One. 

2.  Then  is  the  testimony  to  the  Trinity  a testimony  also  to 

the  Unity  ? 

Emphasis  is  laid  on  into  the  Name.  On  that  name, 
Jehovah,  the  monotheistic  confession  of  Judaism  was  based : 
• . Hear^  O Israel^  Jehovah  our  God  is  one  Jehovah^  or 
Deut.  VI.  4.  God.  This  passage — known  as  the  Shema, 

or  Memorial  preeminently, — has  been  always  the  Jewish  con- 
fession of  faith  ; and  our  Lord  came  not  to  destroy 
Matt.  V.  17.  fulfil  it : Monotheism  is  the  Christian 

confession  also. 

3.  Explain  further  the  bearing  of  our  Lord’s  testimony  to 

the  unity  of  God. 

(1)  The  unity  of  the  Godhead  was  taught  in  the  Old 
Testament  in  two  ways  : first,  as  the  ground  of  undivided 
Deut.  iv.  39  worship ; and,  secondly,  as  protest  against  idolatry, 
isa-xiiv.  8.  We  must  receive  the  baptismal  confession  in  the 
light  of  this. 

(2)  If  the  Three  Names  in  the  One  Name  are  the  object 
of  one  worship,  and  this  is  still  a protest  against  idolatry,  they 
must  be  equally  Divine.  Were  the  Son  the  highest  creature, 
and  the  Spirit  the  second,  or  a personified  influence,  our  Lord 
would  in  effect  have  contradicted  the  Old-Testament  doctrine. 

4.  But  it  may  be  argued  that,  while  our  Lord  asserts  the 

unity  of  God,  the  baptising  means  only  the  subordinate 
recognition  of  two  persons  in  redemption. 

This  redemptional  Trinity  must  be  based  upon  a Trinity 
in  the  absolute  essence.  All  nations  are  to  be  drawn  from 
idols  to  serve  the  true  God.  Into  the  Name  sig- 
iThess.1.9.  revelation  of  Jehovah  ; and  the 

Three  Persons  are  the  New-Testament  meaning  of  the  I am 

WHAT  I WILL  BE. 

6.  What  are  we  taught  here  concerning  the  relation  of  the 
Three  N ames  ? 

That  the  Father  and  the  Son  have  eternally  such  relation 


The  Holy  Trinity. 


73 


as  in  human  language  is  thus  expressed  ; and  that  the  Spirit  is 
a name  also  derived  from  human  speech  which  is  given  to  an 
eternal  Person.  Son  and  Spirit  are  terms  used  by  God  Himself. 

6.  What  is  taught  of  the  Father  first  ? 

He  is  revealed  as  a Father  in  His  relation  to  men,  espe- 
cially believing  men.  But  this  is  on  the  ground  of  a special 
relation  to  His  eternal  Son,  His  only  begotten.  Not  i Pet.  i.  3. 
only  is  He  the  Father  of  our  Lord  fesus  Christ  as  jg  / 
Incarnate,  but  the  Son  was  originally  in  the  bosom  of  Matt.  xi.  27. 
the  Father^  and  sent  as  such  by  Him.  Neither  doth  any  know 
the  Father^  save  the  Son, 

7.  Under  what  conditions  is  the  term  Father  generally  used  ? 

Sometimes  with  express  reference  to  the  Son  ; and  some- 
times as  standing  for  God  generally,  as  the  Head  of  the  re- 
demptional  Trinity.  We  find  both  in  St.  John^s  final  testi- 
mony, God  hath  sent  His  only  begotten  Son  into  the  ^ ^ 

world ; and  The  Father  hath  sent  the  Son  to  be  the  ^ 14.  ” 
Saviour  of  the  world.  And  perhaps  in  St.  Paul's  : 

Who  is  over  all^  and  through  all^  a7id  m all. 


8.  Then  the  Eternal  Sonship  has  an  essential  relation  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ? 

It  has ; and  nothing  is  more  important  than  to  distin- 
guish between  this  and  those  applications  of  the  term  Son 
which  refer  to  the  incarnate  estate.  Thou  art  My 
Son  ; this  day  have  I begotten  Thee  ! is  applied  in  the 
New  Testament  to  the  full  manifestation  of  the  Son 
as  Mediator;  but  St.  Paul  teaches  that  the  Son  as  Coi. 
such  is  the  Image  of  the  invisible  God^  the  Firstborn 
before  every  creature^  Who  is  before  all  things. 


Psalm  ii.  7. 
Acts  xiii.  33. 
Heb.  i.5;  V. 

5. 

15- 


9.  What  other  terms  express  the  Divinity  of  the  Second  Person  ? 

He  is  called  the  Logos  or  Word,  the  eternal  Revealer, 
Himself  God.  His  relation  to  the  Father  is  expressed  . . . 
as  His  having  been  before  the  incarnation  m the  form  Phii.  ii.  6. 
of  God^  the  Effulgence  of  His  glory ^ and  the  Very  2* 
Impress  of  His  substance. 


10.  What  is  the  specific  relation  of  the  Third  Person  ? 

The  Spirit  receives  three  peculiar  denominations  from  the 


74 


God. 


Great  Revealer.  Two  of  them,  the  Paraclete  and  the  Spirit  oj 
truth,  express  His  relation  to  us  ; the  third,  Who  pro- 
John  XV.  26.  from  the  Father^  expresses  His  eternal  re- 

lation to  God  and  in  God,  In  that  relation  His  name  is  always 
THE  Spirit,  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  Spirit  of  God. 

11.  What  is  the  scriptural  evidence  of  this  ? 

The  two  points  of  the  Personality  and  the  Divinity  of 
the  Spirit  go  together : 

(1)  The  identity  of  God  and  the  Spirit  of  God  runs  through 
the  Bible.  Whoever  the  Spirit  is,  there  is  no  distinction 
between  Him  and  God  : St.  Paul  draws  an  analogy  between 

the  Divine  Spirit  and  the  spirit  of  the  man  which 

I Cor.  ii.  II.  • • 7 • ^ ^ 

ts  in  him, 

(2)  The  distinct  personality  of  the  Spirit  is  among  the 

revelations  of  our  Lord,  who  emphatically  supplements  His 
testimony  to  the  eternal  procession  by  the  words,  Whom  I will 
John  XV.  26.  and  He  shall  testify.  The  general  strain  of 

Gal. iv. 6.  scripture  similarly  combines  the  two:  the  eternal 
procession  and  the  temporal  mission  are  blended  almost 
into  one. 

12.  What  other  arguments  prove  the  Holy  Trinity  ? 

The  Divine  attributes  which  are  ascribed  to  the  Two 
Persons  : to  Them  indeed  especially,  as  will  be  hereafter  seen. 
Whatever  may  be  said  against  the  Divinity  of  the  names  Son 
and  Spirit,  as  sometimes  used  with  a more  limited  meaning, 
the  ascription  of  any  Divine  attribute  to  either  is  ample  de- 
monstration : Divine  perfections  can  belong  to  God  alone. 

13.  How  may  we  sum  up  at  this  point  ? 

(1)  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  mystery  of  the 
Trinity  is  the  supreme  revelation  to  faith,  embracing  in  a 
sense  all  other  mysteries. 

(2)  And  the  terms  Generation  for  the  Son  and  Procession 
for  the  Spirit  are  given  by  our  Lord  to  express  an  eternal  sub- 
ordination in  the  Godhead,  one  however  which  infers  no 
inferiority  of  essence  in  the  Two  Persons. 

(3)  That  this  subordination  in  the  absolute  Trinity  is  the 
mysterious  ground  of  the  redemptional  or  economical  Trinity. 


The  Holy  Trinity. 


75 


§ 3.  €\)t  ^Tvim'tp  in  tt)e  iLater  Scripture. 

1.  Does  tlie  revelation  of  the  Holy  Trinity  by  onr  Lord 

govern  the  later  doctrine  concerning  God  ? 

The  essential  unity  of  the  Godhead  remains  still  the  great 
governing  idea,  which  orders  the  phraseology.  But  the 
Trinity  constantly  appears  in  its  relation  to  the  redeeming 
work,  as  our  Lord  prepared  us  to  expect  that  it  would. 

2.  How  did  He  so  prepare  us  ? 

By  those  specifically  doctrinal  discourses  in  the  paschal 
chamber,  which  were  really  His  final  testimony  to  the  Trinity, 
preceding  and  explaining  beforehand  the  baptismal  formula. 
In  them  He  spoke  of  Himself  as  at  once  a revelation  , ^ 

of  the  Father  and  inferior  to  Him  by  the  incarnation  ; 28. 

and  of  the  Spirit  as  at  once  proceeding  from  the  26- 

Father  and  sent  by  the  incarnate  Son. 

3.  Does  not  the  early  history  of  the  propagation  of  the 

gospel  in  the  Acts  disappoint  our  expectation  as  to  the 
Trinity  ? 

(1)  We  must  remember  that  in  evangelising  both  Jews 
and  Gentiles  the  essential  unity  of  God  was  preached  as  the 
supreme  truth  and  necessary  foundation. 

(2)  That  baptism  into  the  7iame  of  the  Lord  Jesus  ^ as  alone, 
meant  the  Lord’s  baptism  as  distinguished  from 

every  other ; it  does  not  imply  that  the  Triune  Name 

was  not  used.  Moreover,  fuller  instruction  followed  baptism. 

(3)  That  the  history  of  the  spread  of  the  gospel  contains 
the  abundant  materials  of  Trinitarian  doctrine. 

4.  How  may  this  be  shewn  ? 

Especially  by  the  combination  of  the  Three  Persons  in  the 
teaching  given  to  the  churches. 

5.  And  how  is  this  combination  seen  ? 

Everywhere  we  see  the  Three  Names  of  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  bound  up  with  the  processes  of 
redemption  ; and  that  in  such  a manner  as  to  be  utterly 
inexplicable  save  on  the  ground  of  their  equal  Divinity. 


76 


God. 


6.  Can  these  passages  be  classified  ? 

To  classify  them  would  be  a large  and  profitable  study. 
For  instance,  to  give  three  specimens  : 

(1)  In  the  dispensation  of  grace.  Throtigh  Him  we  both 

Eph  ii  i8  access  in  One  Spirit  nnto  the  Father,  In 

I Cor.  iii.  4,  the  diversities  of  gifts,  ministrations  and  workings, 

there  is  the  same  Lord^  the  same  Spirit^  the  same  God, 

(2)  In  the  interior  economy  of  religion  the  Father  is  sup- 
Eph.  iii.  14  plicated  for  His  power  through  His  Spirit  in  the  in- 

“■21.  ward  man  ^ that  Christ  may  dwell  in  your  hearts 
through  faith ^ and  thus  that  we  may  be  filled  unto  all  the 
fulness  of  God, 

(3)  In  the  worship  of  the  church  the  apostolical  benedic- 
tion, the  calling  on  the  name  of  ottr  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,,  the  praying  in  the  Holy  Ghost y and  the 
ascription  of  glory  to  Christ,  are  sufficient  evidence. 
In  the  other  world  invocation  of  grace  is  from  the 
Three  Persons,  and  the  highest  glory  is  offered  to 

fesus  as  the  Redeemer  of  mankind. 


2 Cor.  xiii. 
14. 

1 Cor.  i.  2. 
Jude  20. 

■j  Tim.  iv.  18. 
Rev.  i.  4,  5,6. 


7.  As  it  regards  this  last  point,  is  there  not  a marked 
absence  of  adoration  addressed  to  the  Trinity  in  Unity  ? 

It  must  be  remembered  : (i)  that  the  worship  of  God  is 
the  worship  of  the  Trinity  ; (2)  that  in  the  economy  of  re- 
demption the  Two  Persons  are  subordinate.  One  as  the 
Mediator  and  the  Other  as  the  Inspirer  of  worship  ; 
1C0r.xv.28.  until  God  is  All  in  all  that  subordina- 

tion continues. 


II. 

Jlffribufes  of  ^oJ>, 

1.  What  is  the  difference  between  Divine  names  and  at- 

tributes ? 

Every  name  of  God  expresses  His  whole  being  ; but  the 
attributes  indicate  various  aspects  of  the  Divine  character  ; 
and  no  one  is  independent  of  the  others. 

2.  In  what  way  does  revelation  speak  of  them  ? 

By  asserting  (i)  as  from  God  Himself,  what  He  is  in  His 
own  perfection;  (2)  what  He  is  not,  or  denying  imperfection 


The  Divine  Attributes. 


77 


to  Him  ; and  (3)  that  He  has  the  qualities  which  account  for 
all  that  is.  Thus,  the  old  divines  followed  scripture  when  they 
spoke  of  reaching  adequate  notions  of  the  Divine  attributes 
VIA  EMINENTLE,  VIA  NEGATIONIS,  and  VIA  CAUSALITATIS. 

8,  How  are  the  terms,  attributes,  perfections,  glory,  and 
properties  to  be  used  of  G-od  ? 

The  glory — not  glories — is  the  manifestation  of  the 
Divine  nature  to  the  bodily  or  spiritual  eye  of  His  creatures. 
Property,  or  propriety,  notes  what  belongs  to  God  viewed  as 
a Person,  or  in  a threefold  personality.  When  the  term 
perfections  is  used  we  mean  the  assemblage  of  attributes  each 
of  which  as  perfect  is  a perfection.  But  attributes  is  the 
aptest  term,  as  avoiding  the  idea  of  distinction  in  the  Divine 
nature,  and  meaning  only  what  God  permits  us  to  attribute 
to  His  unfathomable  essence. 

4.  Is  there  any  classification  of  the  attributes  in  scripture  ? 

There  are  constant  indications  of  it.  For  instance, 
sometimes  God  is  spoken  of  as  independent  of  creaturely 
existence,  and  the  attributes  are  a negation  of  the  limits  of 
matter  and  time  and  space  : more  frequently  His  attributes 
are  such  as  require  the  universe  for  their  existence  ; and  most 
frequently  they  are  such  as  connect  Him  with  moral  beings 
and  man  especially.  This  scriptural  order  we  must  follow  : 
in  preference  to  any  such  classification  as  natural  and  moral, 
communicable  and  incommunicable,  or  the  like. 


§ 1.  2anteIateU  ^ttritute0. 

1.  What  is  the  force  of  unrelated? 

It  means  that  it  is  the  dignity  of  the  human  mind  to  be 
capable  of  at  least  thinking  of  God  as  the  Only  Being.  But 
every  term  or  nearly  every  term  we  use  to  express  this  must 
be  related  to  the  creature,  and  seem  only  to  deny  limitation. 

2.  What  qualification  is  here  necessary  ? 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  same  revelation  which 
speaks  of  God  as  in  Himself  unconditioned  or  absolute  or 


78 


God. 


unrelated  to  things,  speaks  of  Him  as  having  internal  re- 
lations. But  the  internal  properties  of  the  Divine  essence — 
His  unity  and  triune  subsistences — are  not  attributes.  The 
only  exception  might  seem  to  be  love  ; but  that  is  called 
I John  iv.  8,  the  Very  nature  of  God  ; God  is  love^  and  Love  is  of 
7*  God  (iK.) 

3.  Whicli  then  are  the  absolute  attributes? 

They  are  two,  each  of  which  governs  a class  ; spirituality 
and  infinity.  God  is  the  Infinite  Spirit. 

4.  How  are  these  related? 

Together  they  express  in  human  language  our  conception 
of  an  incomprehensible  essence  : God  is  an  infinite  Spirit. 
The  former  is  positive  : we  believe  that  God  is  a Spirit  ; the 
latter  is  negative  : we  believe  that  He  is  infinite,  a Being 
who  has  no  possible  or  conceivable  limitation. 

5.  How  is  the  spirituality  of  God  taught  ? 

In  the  Old  Testament  as  opposed  to  materiality.  Our 
Lord's  new  revelation  is,  God  is  spirit : His  only 

John  IV.  24.  (jggnition. 

6.  What  attributes  hang  upon  this? 

Personality  : God  is  a Spirit  Whom  we  must  worship  as 
John  iv.  23.  Father  in  spirit,  and  He  is  the  Father  of  spmts. 
Heb.xii.g.  Immutability  or  simplicity  of  nature:  Who  only  hath 

1 Tim.  VI.  16.  ^ tcrm  NATURE  is  not  so 

appropriate  as  essence. 

7.  How  is  the  infinity  of  God  taught  ? 

In  the  scripture  as  immensity,  in  relation,  or  rather  out 
of  relation,  to  space  : Behold^  heaven  and  the  heaven  of  heavens 
cannot  contain  Thee ; and  eternity,  in  relation,  or  out 

2 chron.  vi.  relation,  to  time  : He  is  the  everlasting  God^  or  the 
fsa^xiiv’e^’  God  of  eternity.  Hence  springs  the  self-sufficiency  of 

the  Divine  essence,  as  being  absolute  : lam  the  First 
and  lam  the  Last^  and  beside  Me  there  is  no  God.  His  being 
is  therefore  necessary  being.  And  from  all  this  follows  the 
Divine  unity,  as  an  attribute  : there  can  be  only  one  such  Being. 


The  Divine  Attributes. 


79 


8.  Is  then  the  infinity  of  God  only  a negative  idea? 

The  term  infinite  has  a negative  form,  but  infinity  in  the 
human  mind  is  its  highest  positive  idea  : we  measure  limitation 
by  it,  and  do  not  measure  it  by  limitation.  He  hath  Ecdes.iU. 
set  eternity  in  their  heart : the  deepest  mystery  in  “• 
our  nature. 

9.  Are  these  attributes  ascribed  to  the  Trinity? 

The  Son  is  the  Lord^  the  Spu'ity  Who  by  Eternal  Spirit 
offered  Himself.  The  Third  Person  is  revealed  pre-  2C0r.iii.18. 
eminently  by  this  name.  And  of  the  Son  it  is  said 
that  all  things  outside  of  the  Divine  essence  are  the  works  of 
His  hands  : They  shall  he  changed;  but  Thou  art  the  . 
same.  The  self-sufficiency  of  God  is  that  of  the 
Three  Persons  in  eternal  communion  ; having  in  Themselves 
the  possibilities  of  the  created  universe,  and  of  the  absolute 
attributes’ becoming  relative. 

10.  What  is  the  sum  on  this  subject? 

That  these  attributes  are  unfathomable  ; that  it  is  oui 
highest  dignity  so  to  reflect  them  in  our  finite  nature  as  to 
be  able  to  apprehend  though  we  cannot  comprehend  them  ; 
that  they  are  the  eternal  ground  of  all  other  attributes ; 
expressing  all  of  them  collectively  and  individually  rather 
the  essence  than  the  several  perfections  of  the  Deity. 

§ 2.  ^ttritmtes  iHelatetj  to  tl)e  ©reaturr. 

X.  What  is  meant  by  this  expression? 

That  many  qualities  are  ascribed  to  God  which  have  no 
meaning  save  as  related  to  the  creaturely  existence. 

2.  What  is  their  relation  to  the  absolute  attributes? 

It  will  be  seen  that  each  of  them  is  based  upon  an 
absolute  attribute,  under  a divinely  appointed  limitation, 
real  and  not  figurative,  to  time  and  things. 

3.  What  is  aimed  at  by  this  distinction? 

The  importance  of  remembering  in  every  discussion  that 
we  must  keep  the  two  apart  without  understanding  how  it 


8o 


God, 


may  be.  For  instance,  to  the  Eternal,  as  above  time,  all 
is  one  unchanging  now  ; but,  having  created  time.  His 
omniscience  has  its  true  temporal  past  and  present  and  future. 

4.  Which  are  these  attributes? 

They  are,  in  the  order  of  human  thought.  Freedom, 
Omnipotence,  Omnipresence,  Omniscience,  Wisdom  and 
Goodness  : all  necessarily  presupposing  a sphere  of  creation. 

6.  Do  we  here  exclude  what  we  call  the  moral  attributes? 

These  really  spring  out  of  the  first  and  the  last,  freedom 
and  goodness.  But  we  are  limited  here  to  the  creature  as 
such  and  universally.  The  moral  attributes  refer  only  to  a 
part,  the  best  part,  of  the  creature,  and  must  be  reserved. 

6.  What  is  freedom  as  an  attribute  of  God  ? 

Freedom  means  the  will  of  a personal  agent,  conscious  of 
originating  his  own  act.  There  is  no  absolute  personal 
agent  but  God : the  creaturely  origination  of  act  is  real,  but 
derived  and  dependent  and  responsible. 

7.  What  are  the  bearings  of  this  attribute  in  theology? 

It  takes  the  lead  in  creation,  as  the  Triune  will ; 
it  contradicts  pantheism  ; it  issues  the  decree  of  redemp- 
tion, and  presides  over  the  government  of  the  moral  world. 
It  is  decretive  and  absolute ; or,  if  permissive,  only  as  har- 
monised with  other  attributes  such  as  goodness,  though  not 
limited  by  them. 

8.  What  is  the  relation  of  omnipotence  to  this  ? 

It  is  expressed  thus.  Hi  hath  done  whatsoever  He  hath 
pleased ; but  not  all  that  He  can  do  is  it  God's  will  to 
Ten xxxii.  17.  Omnipotence  is  assigned  to  the  Supreme  via 

Psaimcxv.3.  cAUSALiTATis  ; it  siuiply  accounts  for  all  that  is. 
Hence  it  is  impressed  on  our  minds  in  our  idea  of  causation  ; 
everything  has  its  cause,  and  the  First  Cause  i?  the  will  of 
God  executed  by  omnipotence,  the  attribute  which  ministers 
to  His  will.  Hence,  further,  every  difficulty  that  can  arise 
here  must  be  carried  higher;  to  what  we  call  purpose  in  God 
as  the  Holy  Trinity. 


I'he  Divine  Attributes. 


8i 


9.  How  does  scripture  treat  the  Divine  Omnipresence  ? 


God  is  present  in  all  His  Divinity  everywhere : I?o  not  1 
fill  heaven  and  ea^'th  ? But  it  is  better  to  say  that  all 
things  are  present  to  God  : In  Him  we  live  and  move  24. 

U7id  have  on7'  being. 


Acts  xvii.  28. 


10.  And  how  is  Omniscience  related  to  this  ? 

(i)  The  universal  presence  of  God  is  essentially  His 
universal  knowledge : All  thmgs  are  naked  and  laid  ^ 

open  before  His  eyes.  (2)  The  God  of  eternity,  be-  ^ 
coming  the  God  of  time,  knows  the  past  and  the  future  as  such  : 
remembrance,  observation,  and  foreknowledge  belong  to  Him 
whose  tmder standing  is  mfinite^  or  beyond  reckoning. 

(3)  The  most  impressive  aspect  of  the  attribute  is  the 
foreknowledge  that  is  bound  up  with  what  man  calls  con- 
tingency. 


11.  What  is  Wisdom  as  an  attribute  of  God  ? 

It  is  ascribed  by  God  to  Himself  as  the  use  of  that 
infinite  understanding  in  the  employment  of  means,  to  attain 
ends  in  the  created  universe  both  physical  and  spiritual. 

12.  And  what  is  Goodness  ? 

The  lovingkindness  which  wills  the  welfare  of  the  creature 
as  such.  The  eai'th  is  full  of  the  goodness  of  the  Lord.  ps.  xxxiii.  5. 
It  has  many  names,  as  signifying  the  diffusive  kind-  Ps.  cxiv.  9. 
ness  which  is  over  all  His  works.  The  existence  of  evil  may 
be  thought  to  conflict  with  this.  But  without  reason  ; 
for  the  goodness  of  God  endureth  continually  in  con- 
tending  with  sin  and  its  consequences.  The  origin  of  evil  is 
sealed  from  us. 


13.  Are  all  these  attributes  assigned  to  the  Three  Persons? 

In  the  Old  Testament  the  Word  or  Wisdom  of  God  and 
His  Spirit  represent  all  the  Divine  attributes  in  the  creaturely 
universe.  In  the  New  Testament  Christ  is  the  power  j cor.  i.  24. 
of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God ; while  the  Spirit  ^ 
searcheth  all  things.,  yea.,  the  deep  things  of  God.  But  both  the 
Son  and  the  Spirit  are  in  the  economies  of  creation  and  redemp- 
tion regarded  rather  as  the  Agents  by  Whom  the  attributes  are 


82 


God. 


exercised.  Moreover,  the  Son  in  His  estate  of  humiliation 
displays  them  no  further  than  they  are  capable  of  being  mani- 
fested in  human  nature.  Though  as  Divine  He  has  all  the 
perfections  of  Deity,  omnipotence,  omnipresence,  and  omni- 
science are  limited  by  the  sphere  of  His  incarnate  work. 

§ 3.  il^oral  ; or,  related  to  J^oral  ©rrature* 

1.  On  what  principle  are  these  distinguished? 

As  God  creating  a universe  limits  His  attributes  in  relation 
to  it,  so  as  the  Creator  of  moral  and  free  intelligences  He  assigns 
to  Himself  moral  attributes  belonging  to  that  relation. 

2.  But  are  not  the  principles  of  morality  eternally  in  God  ? 

The  God  who  is  absolute,  and  without  a creature,  is  of 
course  the  same  God  who  creates  and  governs  the  world.  But, 
unless  we  suppose  created  intelligences,  we  cannot  suppose 
in  Him  holiness,  righteousness,  grace,  mercy,  or  truth. 

3.  Does  not  this  seem  to  imply  that  God  created  morality? 

And  that  is  certainly  true:  there  is  no  creature  without 
obligation  ; and  no  obligation  without  a creature.  Of  the 
Eternal  neither  obligation  nor  responsibility  can  be  predicated. 

4.  Is  not  God  eternally  holy,  and  just,  and  true,  and  good? 

Holiness  being  separation  from  evil  existent  or  possible, 
justice  supposing  a law  administered,  truth  implying  obligation 
and  responsibility,  and  goodness  being  either  estimated  as  such 
or  received  by  a creature,  they  all  imply  creaturely  intelligences. 

5.  Where  may  we  find  a link  between  the  eternal  essence 

and  the  ethics  of  Divine  relation  to  the  creature  ? 

In  Love,  which  is  the  eternal  property  of  the  Triune  God, 
in  the  intercommunion  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Ghost:  the  final  interior  basis  of  all  that  is  external. 

6.  Is  love  then  the  sum  of  the  moral  attributes  of  God  ? 

It  would  be  so  if  all  creatures  were  under  necessity  of 
goodness  ; but  their  probationary  freedom  renders  evil  possible, 
and  hence  arise  other  attributes  in  God. 


The  Divine  Attributes. 


83 


7,  What  other  attributes  ? 

All  those  which  guard  against  evil,  holiness  being  at  their 
head  : answering  to  love,  the  head  of  the  diffusive  attributes. 

8.  Then  do  love  and  holiness  divide  them  all? 

Yes:  but  not  as  distinct.  God  is  one  ; His  attributes  are 
one  in  Him  ; and  the  combination  of  love  and  holiness  will  be 
found  of  great  importance  throughout  theology. 

anil  tte  IProtectibe  ^ttntutes. 

1.  How  is  the  Divine  holiness  treated  in  Scripture? 

In  two  ways  : (i)  As  the  attribute  which  expresses  the 
separation  of  God  from  all  evil ; and  (2)  the  perfection  to 
which  man  is  called  in  the  Divine  fellowship. 

2.  Are  not  these  contradictory? 

(1)  In  the  case  of  the  unfallen,  the  holiness  of  God  is  viewed 
as  the  separation  from  evil  as  possible. 

(2)  The  fallen  are  severed  from  God  by  sin  for  ever : His 
holiness  alone  would  never  recall  them  ; but  it  is  not  alone. 

3.  How  then  are  sinners  partakers  of  His  holiness  ? 

Through  the  intervention  of  atonement  only.  Ye  shall 
be  holy ; for  lam  holy  1 is  said  to  those  who  have  i Pet.  i.  16, 
purified  their  souls  in  the  way  ordained  of  God.  The  ^2. 
atonement  at  once  protects  Divine  holiness  and  restores  it  to 
man. 

4.  How  is  the  justice  of  God  related  to  this  ? 

What  holiness  is  to  the  Divine  nature,  righteousness  is  to 
the  Divine  government. 

(1)  God’s  rectoral  righteousness  ensures  the  perfection  of 
His  laws  and  their  administration. 

(2)  His  judicial  righteousness  is  the  attribute  that  assures 
perfect  justice  in  the  distribution  of  rewards  and  punishments. 

5.  Is  it  consistent  with  the  supremacy  of  God’s  love  and 

the  majesty  of  His  name  that  exacting  and  retributive 
righteousness  should  be  ascribed  to  Him? 

(i)  Majesty  is  the  attribute  that  places  God  at  the  head  of 


84 


God. 


the  creaturely  universe  ; and  nothing  that  tends  to  His  glory 
can  be  inconsistent  with  His  several  perfections. 

(2)  Love  is  supreme  among  and  not  over  the  moral  per- 
fections of  the  Divine  nature. 

(3)  But,  finally,  both  the  glory  of  the  Moral  Governor  and 
the  good  of  the  governed  demand  that  righteousness  in  God 
should  have  its  full  character  and  its  unforced  definition. 

6.  How  is  that  taken  from  it? 

By  theories  of  righteousness  which  make  it  simply  the 
conformity  of  God  to  His  own  established  order,  whatever  that 
may  be  : thus  making  it  synonymous  with  His  goodness. 

7.  What  is  its  defence? 

(1)  This  current  idea  of  righteousness  will  not  suit  many 
passages  of  scripture:  especially  that  one  which  speaks  of  the 

righteous  judgment  of  God^  Who  will  render  to  every 
' man  according  to  his  works. 

(2)  There  are  other  attributes,  and  names  of  attributes, 
which  express  that  softei  idea  of  righteousness. 

8.  Which  are  they? 

Truth  and  Faithfulness : God  is  true  in  His  revelations, 
and  faithful  in  His  promises  and  threatenings,  though  the 
latter  aspect  is  not  made  so  prominent  as  the  former. 

iLote  anU  bating 

1.  How  is  the  Divine  love  towards  moral  agents  treated? 

In  two  ways  : (1)  as  the  attribute  that  provides  salvation  ; 
and  (2)  administers  that  salvation  under  many  names. 

2.  Does  love  in  God  supremely  provide  and  administer 

salvation  ? 

(1)  Not  as  of  necessity  : for  it  is  displayed  only  on  con- 
ditions. Herein  is  love  ....  that  He  loved  us  and  sent  His 

Son  to  he  the  propitiation  for  our  sins.  And  hence 
ijohniv.io.  to  man  in  Christ:  it  is  reserved  for 

the  atonement. 

(2)  But  it  is  supreme  : as  sending  the  Greatest  Gift  j as 


Historical  Discussions, 


85 


throwing  always  the  restraint  of  mercy  over  the  judgment  of 
God;  and  thus  presiding  over  the  beginning  and  John m.  16. 
the  end  of  redemption,  though  not  as  silencing  Jas.u.  13. 
righteousness. 

3.  What  forms  does  love  take? 

It  is  Grace  in  Jesus  as  resting  on  the  unworthy;  Com- 
passion, or  pity  as  viewing  misery  ; Mercy  as  remitting  penalty. 
But  its  names  are  as  many  as  the  aspects  of  man’s  evil. 

III. 

^tsforical. 

1.  What  belongs  to  an  historical  review  of  this  whole  question  ? 

We  have  seen  that  in  scripture  there  is  one  doctrine  : that 
God  is,  and  that  revelation  is  a continuous  development  of  His  ^ 
name  and  attributes  as  the  redeeming  Trinity.  All  independent 
speculation  on  these  two  subjects  belongs  to  the  history  of 
human  thought. 

2.  What  has  been  the  range  of  independent  speculation  ? 

Under  the  first  head  come  arguments  for  and  against  the 
being  of  God  ; with  questions  as  to  the  possibility  and  the  limits 
of  the  knowledge  of  the  Infinite.  Under  the  second  all  specu- 
lations, whether  outside  of  revelation  or  within  the  Christian 
church,  as  to  the  interior  plurality  of  the  Godhead. 

§ 1.  2Tf)e  ISemg  of  GoU  as  a Question. 

1.  Has  this  ever  really  been  questioned  ? 

In  a certain  sense  it  has  ; if  we  may  judge  by  the  argu- 
ments which  have  been  used  in  all  ages  to  prove  it. 

2.  Why  “in  a certain  sense”  ? 

Because  the  argumentation  itself  seems  to  assume  that 
which  it  argues  about. 

3.  How  may  this  be  explained  ? 

Man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God  ; and  by  the  very 
constitution  of  his  nature  inquires  after  the  Being  from  Whom 


86 


God, 


he  came,  on  Whom  he  is  dependent,  and  to  Whom  he  is 
responsible. 

4.  Does  this  mean  that  the  idea  of  God  is  innate  ? 

Rightly  understood,  it  is  innate.  As  man  surely  comes 
to  consciousness  of  self  and  the  outer  world,  not  self,  so  he 
comes  to  the  consciousness  of  a Being  above  both:  all  this  being 
innate  or  connate,  though  at  first  undeveloped.  It  is  born  in 
or  with  man  as  a faculty  to  seek  and  a capacity  to  receive  the 
knowledge  and  enjoyment  of  the  God  who  made  him. 

5.  What  is  the  testimony  of  revelation  to  this  ? 

Ps.  xiv.  I.  It  never  proves  that  God  is : the  atheism  it 

Eph.  ii.  12.  rebukes  is  always  and  everywhere  moral. 

6.  Does  not  revelation  use  arguments  in  that  appeal? 

Only  to  encourage  or  confirm  the  belief  it  assumes,  and 
Rom.  i.  28.  the  obscuration  of  which  it  attributes  to  sin. 

7.  What  is  the  line  of  scriptural  argument  ? 

It  makes  its  constant  appeal  as  follows : — (i)  To  the  sense 
Actsxvii.27,  of  God  in  every  human  spirit  ; (2)  to  the  logic  of 
is^’xi.  21.  every  mind,  arguing  from  the  creation  to  an  adequate 
Ps.xix.i— 3;  cause  of  it  ; (3)  to  the  universal  marks  of  design  ; 
Rom.\^i8.  (4)  to  the  conscience  of  man  as  a sinner  ; (5)  to  the 

Rom  agreement  of  all  nations,  taught  by  God  Himself  to 

^s^xvn.  2 after  Him  and fi7id  Him, 

8.  But  this  seems  like  the  line  of  theological  argument? 

It  is  so,  but  with  a difference.  The  scripture  speaks  to 
rebuke  man^s  trifling  with  his  convictions.  ' Theological  argu- 
ment professes  to  convince  unbelievers  as  such. 

9.  Who  then  are  on  this  question  the  unbelievers  ? 

It  is  usual  to  term  them  Atheists.  But  this  is  an  inde- 
finite word,  requiring  analysis  and  classification.  Strictly 
speaking,  there  is  but  one  logical  form  of  unbelief ; and  that  is 
Antitheism,  which  argues  against  the  possibility  that  there 
can  be  a God.  Pantheism  does  not  deny  that  God  is,  but 


Historical  Discussions. 


87 


will  not  admit  that  He  is  distinguished  from  the  universe. 
Agnosticism  denies  only  that  He  is  an  object  of  thought. 

10.  How  are  tlie  demonstrations  of  the  being  of  God  conducted  ? 

In  such  a way  as  to  meet  all  these  at  once.  But  it  must 
be  remembered  that  their  demonstrative  force  is  no  more  and 
no  less  than  what  scripture  assigns  them.  In  their  new  ter- 
minology they  may  be  presented  as  follows  : — 

(1)  The  Ontological  argument : that  the  idea  of  the 
Infinite,  or  God,  in  the  human  mind  implies  A priori  a 
corresponding  object. 

(2)  The  Cosmological  : that  an  absolute  First  Cause  of  all 
things  is  a necessity  of  thought. 

(3)  The  Teleological  : that  marks  of  design,  infinitely 
diversified  yet  all  converging  to  final  ends,  demand  a 
Designing  Creator. 

(4)  The  Moral  : man^s  indestructible  sense  of  dependence, 
responsibility,  and  desire  points  to  a Supreme  Father  and 
Ruler  and  End  of  his  being. 

(5)  The  Consensus  Gentium  : in  all  ages,  and  among  all 
men,  some  sense  of  the  supernatural  is  found,  though  varying 
in  its  errors  from  the  lowest  fetichism  to  the  highest  pantheism. 


§ 2.  }Poj335iIiilttg  of  a Notion  of  Goij. 

1.  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  question  ? 

It  has  been  argued  that  the  finite  mind  cannot  comprehend 
or  define  an  infinite  object,  that  is,  form  an  adequate  concept 
and  express  a complete  definition  of  it ; and  therefore  that  all 
demonstrations  of  God  are  efforts  to  prove  that  Something  is 
behind  all  phenomena  to  which  no  demonstration  can  warrant 
our  giving  a defining  name. 

2.  And  what  are  the  bearings  of  this  question  ? 

It  is  of  wide  and  fundamental  importance : in  fact,  it 
vitally  concerns  every  error  as  to  the  being  of  God,  whether  of 
the  antitheist  or  the  theist. 


88 


God. 


3.  How  does  it  iDear  on  Antitheism  ? 

It  really  removes  the  ground  from  under  it.  While 
Agnosticism  urges  that  the  Power  behind  the  universe  cannot 
be  known,  Antitheism  professes  to  have  such  a knowledge  of 
its  necessary  attributes  as  to  be  sure  that  it  cannot  exist : the 
most  stupendous  instance  of  proving  a negative. 

4.  How  does  it  bear  upon  Pantheism  ? 

The  term  expresses  that  what  we  call  God  is  the  sum  of 
all  things,  the  universal  substance  as  manifested  by  what  we 
call  the  attributes  of  spirit  and  matter.  It  may  be  said  that 
Agnosticism,  denying  of  course  the  possibility  of  so  clear  a 
conception  of  what  God  is,  cannot  fairly  be  pantheistic. 

5.  What  other  errors  does  it  oppose? 

There  are  no  others  : all  the  fundamental  errors  as  to  the 
Deity  are  summed  up  in  these  two,  Antitheism  and  Pantheism. 
And  each  means,  when  pressed  to  its  issues,  that  what  the 
human  intellect  cannot  define  is  not.  Agnosticism  must  on 
its  own  principles  deny  that : it  supposes  Something  that  is. 

6.  But  we  have  not  yet  answered  its  own  argument  ? 

Indirectly  it  has  been  answered.  But  more  positively  the 
following  positions  may  be  taken  : 

(1)  God  is  an  object  not  of  definition  but  of  knowledge. 

(2)  Knowledge  is  the  right  relation  of  the  mind  to  the 
truth  of  its  object ; and  this  holds  of  the  Supreme  Object. 

(3)  The  definition  of  an  object  of  knowledge  is  far  more 
what  it  excludes  than  what  it  includes  : we  know  in  part  only 
almost  all  that  we  know. 

(4)  Many  things  that  are  practically  indefinite  and  un- 
limited we  nevertheless  know  ; and  the  finite,  in  constant 
contact  with  the  Infinite,  knows  it  with  a real  knowledge  which 
though  limited  is  sufficient  for  every  practical  purpose. 

7.  Is  this  the  ‘‘regulative  knowledge’’  which  those  allow 

who  deny  that  we  can  know  the  Infinite  Being  ? 

No  : they  admit  the  second  and  third  of  these  terms,  but 


Historical  Discussions. 


8g 


refuse  the  first.  We  must  maintain  that  our  limited  know- 
ledge  is  not  only  sufficient  but  real  : that  there  is  no 
knowledge  more  real  than  this. 

8.  What  is  the  testimony  of  scripture  on  this  subject  ? 

(1)  That  God  is  both  unknown  and  revealed.  No  man 
hath  seen  God  at  any  time ; the  07ily  begotten  Son^ 

Who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father^  He  hath  declared  Actsxvii.23. 
Him,  Whom  ye  worship  not  knowings  Him  set  I foidh  unto  you  : 
this  saying  of  St.  Paul,  studied  in  its  context,  bears  out  our 
application. 

(2)  That  there  is  a knowledge  of  God  which  is  not  only 
real,  but  synonymous  with  the  souPs  highest  life : 

And  this  is  life  eternal  that  they  should  htow  Thee,  ^ 

§ 3.  ^xinitv, 

1.  How  far  has  this  mystery  entered  into  human  specula- 

tion ? 

Much  more  extensively  than  is  sometimes  assumed.  A 
certain  triad  is  found  in  most  of  the  ancient  Asiatic  religions, 
in  the  Egyptian,  and  in  the  religious  philosophy  of  Plato.  But 
nothing  that  even  approaches  a Trinity  in  unity  can  be  traced. 

2.  Did  not  later  Judaism  find  the  doctrine  in  their  ancient 

books  ? 

Rabbinical  writers  in  early  Christian  ages  collected  many 
testimonies  from  the  oral  expositions  of  their  scriptures  which, 
they  affirm,  were  the  basis  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  Whether  some  of  these  were  or  were  not  themselves 
due  to  the  New  Testament,  they  are  valuable  testimony  to 
Jewish  opinion  and  secret  tradition. 

3.  Do  the  Gospels  indicate  that  our  Lord  appealed  to  any 

latent  Trinitarian  idea  ? 

He  constantly  prepared  His  hearers  for  that  full  revelation 
of  God  which,  equally  with  the  salvation  of  man,  was  the  end 
of  His  mission.  But,  as  He  did  not  lift  the  veil  from  His 
atonement  until  He  suffered,  so  He  did  not  declare  the  Trinity 
until  the  Holy  Spirit  came.  His  full  testimony  to  the  Third 


go 


God. 


Person  was  given  in  His  last  discourse  ; but  His  entire  ministry 
was  a perpetual  appeal  to  the  faith  of  the  covenant  people  in 
an  Eternal  Son  of  God. 

4.  Do  the  scriptures  give  any  hints  to  prepare  for  future 
dogmatic  expositions  of  the  Trinity? 

Very  few,  if  any.  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
having  Jewish  monotheism  and  Gentile  polytheism  in  view, 
are  instructed  to  do  no  more  than  furnish  a multitude  of 
testimonies  to  the  personality,  Divinity,  and  relations  of  the 
Three  Persons.  These  would  demand,  when  the  kingdom  of 
our  Lord  was  fully  set  up,  the  terminology  which  we  now  use. 

6.  By  what  stages  was  this  terminology  reached  ? 

By  the  expansion  of  the  Baptismal  Formula ; by  the 
triune  classification  of  the  doxologies  of  scripture  and  the 
benedictions  ; by  the  introduction  in  the  second  century  of  the 
term  Trias  or  Trinitas  ; and  by  the  adoption  of  the  conven- 
tional distinction  between  ovcrta  for  the  nature  common  to 
the  Three  Persons  and  vTroVracrt?  for  the  personality  belonging 
to  each. 

6.  What  was  the  earliest  development  in  the  doctrine  as 

such  ? 

That  which  has  been  called  in  later  times  Subordinationism: 
the  logical  expression  of  the  revealed  truth  that  the  Son  was 
John  i.  i8.  the  only  begotten  God  and  that  the  Spirit  proceeded 
John  XV.  26.  from  the  Father.  The  order  of  the  Trinity,  and  the 
relation  of  this  to  the  Generation  of  the  Son  and  the  Procession 
of  the  Spirit. 

7.  What  was  the  Sahellian  heresy? 

The  denial  by  Sabellius,  in  the  third  century,  of  the  Three 
Personal  Subsistences  in  the  One  God.  Its  trinity  was  simply 
three  modes  in  which  that  one  God  presented  Himself  to  man  : 
first  as  Jehovah,  then  as  the  Son,  then  as  the  Holy  Ghost. 

8.  What  was  Arianism  in  relation  to  the  Trinity  ? 

The  doctrine  that  the  Son  was  begotten  of  the  Father’s 
will,  and  therefore,  though  before  all  worlds,  was  not  eternal. 


Historical  Discussions. 


9^ 


The  Spirit,  also,  it  taught,  came  into  being  in  God  and  from 
God  in  order  to  the  creation. 

0.  How  may  we  state  the  relation  of  these  three  ? 

Together  they  prove  that  the  Trinity  in  Unity  was  the 
earliest  doctrine.  The  first  heresy,  Sabellianism,  arose  out  of 
an  exaggeration  of  the  Unity  which  denied  any  subordination  ; 
Arianism  so  exaggerated  the  idea  of  subordination  that  the 
Unity  was  lost.  But  both  were  protests  against  sundry  forms 
of  Unitarianism,  or  Monarchianism,  which  heretics  had  devised, 
especially  in  the  second  century. 

10.  How  was  subordinationism  developed  ? 

Authoritatively,  in  the  Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan  Creed. 
God  of  God,  as  it  respects  the  Son;  Who  proceedeth  from 
THE  Father  and  the  Son,  as  it  respects  the  Spirit. 

11.  What  were  the  bearings  of  the  controversy  as  to  the 

procession  of  the  Spirit  ? 

The  addition  Filioque,  “ and  from  the  Son,”  to  the  Nicene 
Creed,  was  rejected  by  the  Eastern  Church  ; and  was  one 
reason  of  the  breach  between  East  and  West. 

12.  What  were  the  characteristics  of  mediaeval  speculation  ? 

It  was  much  occupied  in  endeavours  to  find  analogies  of 
the  Trinity  in  the  constitution  of  human  nature  and  the  pro- 
cesses of  thought ; as  also  in  constructing  the  terminology  of 
the  internal  and  external  relations  of  the  Three  Persons. 

13.  Had  all  this  any  value? 

Great  value  in  obviating  objections  ; and  in  protecting  the 
doctrine  they  had  their  use,  especially  as  continued  in  the 
dogmatics  of  the  Reformation.  But,  as  aiming  at  a solution 
of  the  unfathomable  mystery,  they  had  no  value. 

14.  What  was  the  later  development  of  the  order  or  sub- 

ordination of  Persons  in  the  Trinity  ? 

(i)  Reaction  against  it  gave  birth  to  a doctrine  scarcely 
distinguishable  from  Tritheism  : that  of  three  distinct  Gods. 

5 


92 


God. 


(2)  After  the  Reformation  the  earliest  Arminian  divines 
made  it  very  emphatic  ; but  their  descendants  proved  the 
danger  of  too  careful  definition  by  verging  on  Arianism. 

(3)  In  later  times  there  was  much  exercise  of  human 
subtilty  in  tracing  analogies  between  the  interior  life  of  the 
Trinity  and  the  exterior  manifestation  of  God  in  the  universe. 
This  also  had  its  unhealthy  reaction. 

(4)  During  the  sixteenth  century  Socinianism  revived  the 
ancient  Monarchianism,  or  the  doctrine  of  the  absolute  unity 
of  God  : but  with  a certain  effect  of  Arian  subordinationism 
lingering  in  it  which  raised  its  conceptions  of  the  Son  and  the 
Spirit  much  higher  than  those  of  modern  Unitarianism. 

15.  What  have  been  the  modern  bearings  of  the  question? 

(1)  It  has  been  closely  connected  with  controversy  as  to 
the  Eternal  Sonship  : the  doctrine  which  may  be  said  to  be 
the  central  element  of  our  Lord’s  own  teaching  concerning 
Himself  throughout  the  Gospels. 

(2)  And  it  has  been  found  of  great  importance  as  the 
eternal  origin  of  the  temporal  subordination  of  the  Two  Per- 
sons in  the  work  of  redemption. 

16.  What  lessons  are  taught  by  the  history  of  controversy 

on  this  subject  ? 

The  importance  of  remembering  (i)  that  this  ultimate 
mystery  of  Christianity  must  be  accepted  by  faith  and  pro- 
foundly adored  ; (2)  that  it  is  the  regulative  doctrine  of  the 
whole  system  of  Christian  truth  ; and  (3)  that  it  must  be  the 
ceaseless  care  of  the  teacher  or  preacher  so  to  order  his 
language  as  to  avoid  the  three  cardinal  errors  of  Tritheism, 
Sabellianism,  and  Arianism. 


BOOK  III 


God  and  the  Creature. 


I.  CREATION. 

II.  THE  CREATED  UNIVERSE, 

III.  PROVIDENCE. 

IV.  HISTORICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


Creation. 


95 


BOOK  III. 

au6  t^e  ^rcalutrc. 

Prelim  marg. 

1.  Why  do  we  not  pass  at  once  to  Creation  and  the  Creature  ? 

Because  the  doctrines  concerning  God  and  concerning  the 
created  universe  are  most  intimately  connected.  Much  that 
is  generally  treated  under  the  former  belongs  equally  to  the 
latter  : for  instance,  Pantheism,  Polytheism,  Dualism  ; which 
really  are  questions  involving  the  relation  of  the  creature  to 
the  Creator.  And  certainly  the  subjects  which  now  lie  before 
us  are  never  safely  studied  saving  in  strict  connection  with  the 
true  doctrine  of  God. 

2.  Preserving  this  combination,  how  shall  we  proceed  ? 

By  considering  first  the  God  of  creation  ; and  then  the 
God  of  providence. 

3.  What  is  the  link  between  these  ? 

The  first  deals  with  the  How  and  the  What  of  creation  ; 
the  second  deals  with  the  How  and  the  Why. 

I. 

1.  What  topics  present  themselves  here  ? 

Mainly  two  : the  connection  of  creation  with  God  and 
His  attributes  ; and  the  creating  acts  or  processes  themselves. 

2.  How  is  this  question  to  be  dealt  with  ? 

First,  as  matter  of  revelation,  which  gives  it  a large  place  ; 
and  then  in  relation  to  human  theories  and  speculation. 

8.  Is  not  this  too  extensive  a field  of  inquiry? 

We  are  shut  ud  to  a few  plain  principles  : First,  it  must 


God  and  the  Creature. 


96 


be  remembered  that  theology  regards  the  question  as  one  of 
^ ^ . pure  faith  : faith  we  understand.  It  must, 

^ secondly,  be  remembered  that  we  have  to  do  with 

the  created  universe  mainly  as  the  sphere  of  redemption. 

4.  Does  not  science  conflict  with  revelation  here? 

Science  has  absolutely  nothing  to  say  about  creation 
proper.  Its  reasonings  concern  the  processes  of  nature,  or  God 
in  nature,  in  the  construction  of  the  universe  ; or  what  may  be 
termed  secondary  creation.  And  as  to  this,  our  duty  is  simply 
defensive  : to  show  that  science  does  not  overturn  the  general 
teachings  of  the  word  of  God. 

§ 1.  0olJ  as  €^reator. 

1.  How  does  revelation  speak  of  God  as  Creator  ? 

It  begins  with  the  truth  that  God  created  the  heaven  and 
the  earth.  But  the  Three  Persons  of  the  Godhead  are  con- 
Gen  i i nected  with  the  process  of  creation.  The  Spirit  of 
Gen*.L2’  God  fnoved  iLpon  the  face  of  the  waters.  Of  the  Son 

John  1.3.  jg  without  Him  was  not  anything  made 

that  hath  been  made. 

2.  What  is  the  .special  relation  of  the  Three  Persons  to  the 

creature,  as  disclosed  in  the  later  scripture  ? 

It  is  somewhat  similar  to  that  which  They  sustain  to 
redemption : Their  relation  to  the  latter  being  within  a 
narrower  circle,  and  after  a different  manner. 

3.  How  are  the  Divine  attributes  related  to  creation? 

(i)  All  the  relative  attributes  are  displayed  in  the  universe 
and  are  to  be  understood  in  its  laws ; power  and  wisdom 
supremely.  (2)  But  the  freedom  of  the  Divine  will,  or  His 
R V V II  pleasure,  originated  all  : Of  Thy  ivill  they  were., 

* and  IV ere  created.  (3)  Majesty  and  other  terms  in- 
dicating the  supremacy  or  lordship  of  the  Creator,  ascribe  to 
Him  His  glory. 

4.  Is  not  the  glory  of  the  Divine  attributes  to  be  regarded 

as  the  end  of  creation? 

Not  certainly  the  only  final  cause  : the  Supreme  has  no 
need  of  that.  His  glory  is  rather  the  result  than  the  end. 


Creation. 


97 


§ 2.  Cvratiou  ^Proper, 

1.  What  does  this  import?  ^ 

All  things  were  called  into  existence  by  God. 

2.  Does  revelation  teach  that  this  was  from  nothing  ? 

From  nothing”  has  no  meaning.  Scripture  says  that 
the  Son  was  before  all  things^  spiritual  or  material  ; 
that  God  calleth  the  things  that  are  not  as  though  Rom.’iy.’i7.‘ 
they  were ; and  that  What  is  seen  hath  not  been  77iade 
out  of  things  which  do  appear, 

3.  What  is  the  full  force  of  these  passages? 

The  first  shows  that  all  things  include  the  whole  universe 
of  spirit  and  matter;  the  second  that  to  the  will  of  God  not 
being  becomes  being  ; and  the  third  lays  it  on  faith,  as  its  fjrst 
recorded  triumph,  to  understand  that  the  visible  creation  did 
not  spring  from  preexisting  things  about  to  become  phenomena. 

4.  How  may  we  sum  up  all  this  ? 

By  the  assurance  of  faith  that  the  creation  came  into 
existence  through  God’s  will  ; that  in  the  ordered  universe 
His  wisdom  presides  over  the  word  of  His  power  ; that  the  Son 
was  the  source  of  existence  as  outside  of  God  ; and  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  and  is  the  organ  or  administrator  of  all  life. 


§ 3.  Crfati'ott  as  .^Formation. 


1.  How  does  this  limit  our  subject  ? 

By  confining  it  mainly  to  the  Cosmos,  or  ordered  universe. 


2.  Is  the  distinction  found  in  scripture  ? 

When  it  is  said  that  by  faith  we  understand  that  the  worlds 
have  been  framed  by  the  word  of  God  we  are  taught 
that  the  successive  ages  of  the  universe  were  brought 
into  order  by  creative  fiats.  This  secondary  creation  is  most 
spoken  of. 


3.  Then  the  construction  of  the  world  is  matter  of  faith  ? 

Yes,  faith  in  the  record  that  gives  us  to  understand  how 
the  universe  as  seen  came  into  existence.  Every  great  change 
is  to  be  regarded  by  faith  as  a Divine  effect  of  creating  will. 


98 


God  and  the  Creature. 


4.  What  then  is  the  record  referred  to  ? 

The  Mosaic  account  of  the  creation  ; which,  like  the 
events  it  describes,  we  receive  by  faith  as  a Divine  revelation 
to  our  first  parents,  through  whom  it  passed  to  Moses. 

5.  Is  the  Mosaic  record,  strictly  speaking,  a history  ? 

It  is  that  kind  of  history  which  it  pleases  God  to  give  for 
the  assistance  of  faith  when  He  describes  the  visible  appearance 
of  His  invisible  things^  even  His  everlasting  power 
Rom.  1. 20.  Godhead,  A literal  history  was  impossible  ; 

what  we  have  is  the  Divine  symbolical  teaching  of  certain  great 
lessons. 

6.  Is  this  teaching  independent  of  scientific  verification  ? 

In  one  sense,  it  must  be  so  : by  faith  we  understand.  But, 
in  another  sense,  it  is  not  independent : science  will  in  due 
time  go  far  towards  explaining  the  laws  of  the  begin- 
Heb.  XI.  3.  j laws  the  operation  of  which  will  bring 

the  end. 

7.  Meanwhile,  what  is  the  teaching  of  the  Mosaic  record  ? 

(i)  That  all  things  were  created  by  one  God  ; (2)  that 
they  were  created  according  to  laws,  the  evolution  of  which 
proceeded  from  lower  to  higher ; and  (3)  tha4:  the  whole  was 
ordered  in  creative  epochs  ceasing  with  the  creation  of  man. 

8.  Is  this  the  meaning  of  the  six  days  ? 

These  epochs  are  connected  with  a seven  days’  reckoning 
by  the  will  of  the  Creator  ; each  day  representing  to  us  a period 
of  undefined  extent.  The  sabbath  of  His  rest  from  creative 
activity  is  now  running  on  ; and  is  weekly  commemorated. 

9.  Is  this  a sufficient  account  in  the  light  of  science  ? 

The  Divine  history  is  a hymn  of  creation  : simply  above 
and  beyond  scientific  criticism.  Two  things  are  indisputably 
true  : first,  that  it  teaches  an  evolution  proceeding  within  the 
limits  of  KIND  even  in  the  seventh  age,  while  creative  inter- 
ventions have  ceased  ; and,  secondly,  that  it  represents  man  as 
the  end  of  all,  which  science  also  does  without  avowing  it. 


The  Created  Universe. 


99 


II. 

@reafc6  ^tniocrsc, 

1.  In  wliat  way  is  this  described  ? 

As  The  heaven  and  the  earthy  All  things^  The  joh”n!‘.  3. 

creation  or  creature.  The  worlds  The  worlds^  All  folTtixvii's 

things  visible  and  invisible,  Heb.  i.  2. 

Col.  i.  16. 

2.  Under  what  relations  are  these  presented? 

Chiefly  in  regard  of  redemption.  But  this  is  in  such  a man- 
ner as  to  furnish  materials  for  a complete  view  of  the  universe. 

3.  What  is  here  meant  by  the  term  universe  ? 

The  sum  of  things  viewed  as  one:  the  unity  of  all  being 
supremely  in  God,  subordinately  in  the  human  mind. 

4.  How  may  we  distribute  the  creation  in  harmony  with  this  ? 
As  the  world  of  spirits,  the  material  world,  and  man. 

5.  Can  we  regard  these  as  entirely  distinct  ? 

We  know  not  the  relation  of  spirits  to  the  material 
universe  ; and  man  is  composed  of  matter  and  spirit.  But  we 
may  consider  the  three  parts  of  the  creation  as  distinct : the 
doctrine  of  the  creature  here  being  between  those  of  creation 
and  providence. 

I.  ^niocrsc  of  Spirits. 

1.  How  may  this  expression  be  justified  ? 

It  is  the  plain  teaching  of  revelation  that  before 
tion  of  the  visible  world  a universe  of  spiritual 
beings  existed:  unlimited  in  number,  and  as  orderly 
in  gradation  as  the  visible  economy.  The  same 
name,  the  Lord  ofhosts^  is  given  to  Jehovah  as  Creator 
of  the  heavenly  bodies  and  of  spirits. 

2.  What  is  recorded  as  to  their  creation  and  history  ? 

(i)  They  occupy  a large  place  in  the  Old  Testament  ; but 
their  creation  is  presupposed.  In  the  New,  their  creation  is 
assigned  to  the  Son,  and  that  in  their  hierarchy  or  order,  as 
corresponding  to  what  in  the  material  universe  is  the  Cosmos. 
(2)  Again,  it  is  presupposed  in  the  Old  Testament  that  before 
5* 


the  crea- 

Isa.  ii.  12. 

I Kings  xxii. 

T ••• 

Jer.xxx1u.22. 
Deut.  xxxiii. 


Dan.  vii.  lo. 
Col.  i.  16. 


ICO 


God  and  the  Creature. 


the  history  of  man  they  had  two  estates,  fallen  and  unfallen: 
the  fallen,  represented  by  Satan,  the  unfallen  by  the  attendants 
I Tim.  iii.  6.  ministers  of  Jehovah.  In  the  New  Testament 
Jude  6.  their  fall  is  dimly  alluded  to  as  preceding  that  of  man. 

3.  What  view  is  presented  of  their  relation  to  the  universe  ? 

They  are  uniformly  described  as  spirits  in  their  nature, 
and  as  angels  intermediary  between  the  Holy  Trinity  and 
created  things.  But  one  law  governs  the  revelation:  that  they 
are  bound  up  with  the  providential  government  of  mankind. 

4.  How  are  they  related  as  spirits  and  as  angels  ? 

(1)  As  spirits  they  are  So7ts  of  God^  and  addressed  them- 

selves as  Ye  gods  ! The  fallen  among  them  are  still  in  their 
Job  i 6 order,  sph'itual  hosts  of  wickedness  in  the  heavenly 
Ps.  xcvii.  7.  places:  that  principalities^  powers^  worldrulers  va 
Eph.  VI.  12.  supernatural  order.  In  their  relation  to  men 

they  are  under  one  head,  the  devil  ; and  serve  him  as  demons 
Mark  v.  i2  iinclean  spirits^  who  have  power  over  both  the 
Tob^ii  bodies  and  the  souls  of  men  : as  to  the  former,  they 
Luke  xni.  i6.  are  instruments  of  disease  ; as  to  the  latter,  of 
1 Tim.  111.  7.  deception  and  temptation,  though  this  is  referred 
generally  to  Satan. 

(2)  As  angels,  they  are  almost  always  seen  to  minister 

1 Thess.  iv.  hoHly  to  the  Divine  will  : from  the  archangel  down 
Matt,  xviii.  those  representatives  and  guardians  of  the  little 

10.  ones  of  Christ  who  are  called  their  angels, 

6.  What  is  the  preeminence  of  Satan  in  Angelology? 

He  is  marked  out  as  a personal  agent,  the  original  sinner, 
and  the  head  of  all  opposition  to  the  Divine  will.  His  many 

2 Cor  iv.  4.  names  are  as  it  were  official : The  god  of  this  world^ 
^xxv^4i^’  who  has  his  kmgdom  and  his  angels  ; Satan,  or  the 
1 John  iii.  12.  adversary;  That  wicked  one;  The  tempter  ; The 
devif  or  the  slanderer,  his  last  and  abiding  name. 

6.  What  suggestions  of  importance  occur  here  ? 

(1)  The  teachings  of  scripture  are  so  consistent  and  unique 
that  no  parallel  need  be  sought  in  extra-Biblical  sources. 

(2)  The  view  given  of  the  universe  would  be  incomplete 
without  the  doctrine  of  spirits  in  their  gradation  and  order. 


The  Created  Universe. 


lOI 


(3)  The  personality  of  Satan  and  of  evil  spirits  is  inti- 
mately connected  with  the  whole  history  of  redemption. 

(4)  We  may  regard  the  angels  as  our  fellow  worshippers, 

in  the  communion  of  saints,  avoiding  the  two  extremes  : the 
worshipping  of  the  angels^  on  the  one  hand  ; and  the  ^ | - g 
forgetfulness  of  their  great  place  in  the  universe,  on  • 

the  other. 


II.  'gJTafciial  '^Inivcxsc. 

1.  Does  anything:  correspond  to  this  phrase  in  scripture? 

Neither  matter  nor  any  of  its  compounds  occurs  there. 
The  general  view  is  that  things  visible  and  things  in-  coi.  i.  16, 17. 
visible  were  created  in  the  Son,  and  in  Him  consist  or  2- 

hold  together.  God  by  Him  made  the  worlds;  and  He  is  appointed 
heir  of  all  things  : heir,  the  Eternal  Son,  of  His  own  creation. 

2.  Is  any  plan  of  creation  ever  referred  to  ? 

The  worlds  express  the  Divine  glory  ; but  always  in  con- 
nection with  the  Son  and  the  destiny  of  mankind.  As  the 
end  and  head  of  creation  He  is  The  Beginning  (dpx^)  Rev.  m.  14. 
of  the  creation  of  God ; and  its  end,  All  things  were  Coi.  i.  16. 
created  through  Him^  and  unto  Him  as  its  Ti\o%. 

3.  Is  the  universe  viewed  only  in  the  light  of  redemption  ? 

By  no  means,  (i)  The  Son  is  more  than  the  Redeemer. 
(2.)  But  His  relation  to  the  worlds  is  limited  to  the  world  of 
man  : as  it  respects  both  its  origin  and  its  end. 

4.  How  is  this  truth  related  to  scientific  theories  as  to  these  ? 

(1)  It  leaves  science  perfectly  free  to  investigate  the  laws 
by  which  the  Word  acted,  from  Tet  there  be  light 
onwards  : as  it  regards  either  the  construction  of  cos- 

mical  systems  or  the  preparation  of  the  earth  for  human  history. 

(2)  The  end  of  the  material  system  as  to  man  is  pre- 
dicted to  be  by  fire,  by  which  the  elements  shall  be  2 Pet  iii  10 
dissolved : in  other  words,  they  shall  be  changed ; and  Heb.  i.  12. 
science  abundantly  sanctions  this  prediction  and  shows  how  it 
may  be  fulfilled. 

6.  How  does  this  limitation  otherwise  affect  theology? 

(i)  It  teaches  the  lesson  of  the  transcendent  superiority  of 
the  spiritual  creation  over  the  material  : the  greatness  of  the 


102 


God  and  the  Creature. 


latter  is  measured  by  unlimited  worlds  and  systems  of  worlds ; 
that  of  the  former  by  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God. 

(2)  Man  has  to  seek  his  salvation  as  ignorant  of  all  other 
beings,  save  where  their  existence  affects  himself. 

(3)  It  opens  a vista  of  the  revelations  that  are  to  come 
hereafter.  The  present  teachings  of  science  minister  to  Chris- 
tian hope. 

III.  'gJTan. 

§ 1.  litis  Creation. 

1.  How  is  the  origin  of  man  described  ? 

As  the  end  of  creation.  First,  as  mankind,  and  in  relation 
to  the  creature,  Male  and  female  created  He  them.  Secondly, 
Gen.  i.  27.  the  mail,  preeminently,  in  relation  to  his  own 
Gen. ii.  7, 23.  histoiy  and  destiny  : out  of  whom,IsH,  woman,  Isha, 
was  taken, 

2.  How  was  he  distinguished  from  other  animals  ? 

God  breathed  into  him,  in  the  act  of  his  formation  out  of 
the  dust,  the  h eath  of  lives,.  The  life  was  common  to  him  and 
Gen.  ii.  7.  lowcr  oi'ders  ; but  into  him  it  was  breathed  by 

Gen.  i.  26.  the  Spirit  as  a life  peculiar.  And  in  his  personality, 
as  man,  he  was  created  by  the  Holy  Trinity  in  Our  image,, 
after  Our  likeness, 

3.  Do  the  two  accounts  of  man’s  creation  agree  ? 

Perfectly,  if  their  several  purpose  is  observed.  In  the 
second,  Elohiin  becomes  lehovah  Elohim  ; they  were  not, 
however,  independent  documents,  but  lehovah  is  introduced 
as  the  God  of  the  covenant  based  upon  redemption,  and  the 
second  record  of  man’s  creation  is  introductory  to  his  fall. 

§ 2.  E\)t  Image  of  6oti. 

1.  What  is  the  importance  of  this  ? 

It  is  the  one  note  of  the  essential,  inherent,  and  inde- 
structible dignity  of  mankind  throughout  the  scripture:  essen- 
tial, as  constituting  man  a free  spiritual  personal  agent  ; in- 
herent, as  not  arising  from  anything  added  after  his  creation  ; 
and  indestructible  as  a chaiacter  of  human  nature. 


The  Created  Universe. 


103 


2.  Is  there  any  distinction  between  image  and  likeness  ? 

The  image  may  refer  to  the  pattern  in  God,  the  likeness 
to  the  copy  in  man.  But  the  original  words  do  not  suggest 
this;  they  indicate  by  repetition  the  importance  of  the  fact. 

3.  Do  they  divide  between  the  natural  and  the  moral  image  ? 

(1)  The  distinction  is  not  alluded  to  in  the  first  creation  ; 
and  the  same  words  are  used  about  the  image  of  Adam 

. , • ° Gen.  V.  3. 

in  his  son. 

(2)  In  the  New  Testament  there  is  an  indirect  reference 
to  the  moral  image  of  God  as  having  been  lost  in  Adam  and 
retrieved  in  Christ.  The  new  man  is  being  renewed  coi.  iii.  10. 
unto  knowledge  after  the  image  of  Him  that  created  ^ph.  iv.  24. 
Him ; or  after  God  hath  been  created  in  righteousness  and 
holiness  of  truth, 

4.  What  does  this  teach  as  to  the  relation  of  these  ? 


(1)  That  the  natural  image  was  the  free  personality  which 
was  capable  of  reflecting  the  Divine  character. 

(2)  That  the  moral  image  was  man’s  possession  of  truth 
and  righteousness  and  holiness  in  their  principles. 

(3)  That  the  fall  was  a descent  from  a high  estate  and  the 
arrest  of  a glorious  development. 

6.  What  relation  does  this  bear  to  the  Son  ? 


The  Son,  as  such,  is  the  supreme  Image  of  the  invisible 
God,  revealing  to  the  created  universe  His  substance  coi.  i.  15. 
and  His  moral  attributes  : in  the  image  of  that  Image  ^eb.  i.  3. 
man  was  created. 

6.  What  relation  to  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 

The  Spirit  was  breathed  into  man,  as  his  immortal  and  holy 
life.  We  cannot  say  to  what  extent  the  fall  deprived 
him  of  that  Spirit:  but  we  know  that  He  continued 
His  influence  in  the  human  soul  ; and  that  the  Saviour,  after 
His  resurrection,  breathed  into  His  people  the  same 
Spirit.  The  word  iv€cj>vcrr](Te  is  used  only  of  these  two. 


John  XX,  22. 


§ 3.  plan’s  IRdation  to  tlje  SISaorlD. 

1.  What  does  the  first  narrative  teach  on  this  subject? 

That,  as  bearing  the  image  of  his  Creator,  he  was  placed  in 
authority  over  the  earth  and  all  creatures  on  it  : this 
dominion  was  not  the  image  but  a prerogative  of  the 
image. 


104 


God  and  the  Creature. 


2.  Does  it  shed  any  further  light  on  it  ? 

While  as  yet  unfallen  the  man  was  appointed  to  culti- 
vate the  earth,  to  subdue  it  to  his  own  uses,  and  thus  to  acquire 
^ ..  dominion  over  it.  At  the  same  time  he  was  able 

Gen.  i.  28.  to  understand  the  creatures  below  him  and  give 
Gen.  11. 20.  ihQYn  their  names. 

3.  How  does  later  scripture  refer  to  this  ? 

Gen.iii.17—  (i)  The  sentence  after  the  fall  makes  man’s  im- 
^9-  potence  in  the  world  very  emphatic. 

(2)  In  the  second  Adam  man  has  retrieved  his  dominion  : 
the  Son  of  man  has  it  absolutely,  and  His  people  will  share  it, 

(3)  Man  and  the  earth  will  be  restored  to  their  relation. 

§ 4.  ^probation  anb  Jpeberal  J^eabsbip* 

1.  How  are  we  to  understand  Adam’s  probation  ? 

Probation  means  the  test  or  trial  of  free  intelligences, 
issuing  in  confirmation  of  character  good  or  evil.  We  know 
it  only  as  trial  addressed  to  good  and  evil  in  our  nature,  and 
cannot  understand  its  application  to  unfallen  beings.  Revela- 
tion describes  it  in  the  terms  known  to  us.  The  sensible  world 
was  a sphere  of  temptation  ; an  evil  spirit  applied  it ; the  is-ue 
was  the  fall  ; but  the  interior  secret  it  is  vain  to  investigate. 

2.  What  was  his  federal  headship  ? 

Federal  refers  to  a covenant  (foedus) ; and  the  idea  is  that 
Adam  represented  his  descendants  in  a covenant.  But  it  is 
better  to  regard  Adam  as  the  natural  head  of  the  race,  one  in 
him  ; and  to  leave  the  covenant  to  the  Second  Head. 

§ 5.  Creation  anb  iilebemptton. 

1.  In  what  sense  are  these  connected  ? 

While  the  history  gives  us  a record  of  creation  as  such,  the 
creation  of  man  is  bound  up  with  the  history  of  his  redemption. 

2.  Was  he  then  created  to  be  redeemed  ? 

This  question  takes  us  beyond  our  faculties.  But  St.  Paul, 
while  he  never  speaks  of  man’s  creation  as  an  eternal  purpose, 
Eph.  i.4,5.  speaks  of  his  redemption  as  such  : especially  in  re- 
Rom.xvi.25.  lation  to  the  mankind  of  which  Christ  will  be  the 
Head. 


The  Created  Universe. 


105 


§ 6.  (stomal. 

1.  What  are  the  leading  topics  of  controversy  here  ? 

There  are  very  many  points  in  which  the  modern  science  of 
Anthropology  comes  into  conflict  with  the  biblical  account.  W e 
regard  the  questions  discussed  among  believers  in  revelation. 

2.  How  is  this  restriction  justified  ? 

The  speculations  excluded  belong  to  the  wider  subject  of 
creation  in  relation  to  God.  Scripture  is  very  explicit  as  to 
the  place  of  m in  in  the  universe  as  the  product  of  a Divine 
purpose  and  act  ; but  it  leaves  room  for  inquiry  on  some  topics 
of  interest  : for  instance,  as  to  the  unity  and  antiquity  of  the 
race  and  the  essential  elements  of  human  nature. 

3.  What  are  the  bearings  of  the  question  as  to  unity  ? 

The  unity  of  the  race  in  its  two  heads  is  fundamental  ; 
amd  it  is  of  great  importance  to  discuss  thoroughly 
the  manifold  grounds  on  which  the  latest  science  26. 
bases  its  conclusion  that  the  varieties  of  mankind  are 
consistent  with  a common  origin.  Here  of  course  the  question 
of  sufficient  time  enters. 

4.  Does  the  Bible  harmonise  with  the  antiquity  of  man  ? 

Perfectly,  if  that  necessary  antiquity  is  not  stretched  too 
far  back.  The  New  Testament  speaks  generally  of  long  past 
ages  and  of  Christ  as  having  come  at  the  end  of  the  world. 
The  Old  Testament  runs  through  these  ages  ; but  its  chro- 
nology is  very  obscure,  especially  as  to  the  times  before  the 
flood.  Meanwhile,  an  extremely  high  antiquity  is,  on  the  one 
hand,  not  proved  by  any  established  facts,  and,  on  the  other, 
is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  recent  beginnings  of  history  and 
the  present  comparatively  limited  distribution  of  mankind. 

5.  What  are  the  discussions  as  to  human  nature  ? 

The  question  of  the  meaning  of  living  soul  as  used  of 
Adam,  and  contrasted  by  St.  Paul  with  the  quicken- 
ing Spirit^  has  taken  many  forms.  The  nature  of  ^ 45- 

man  is  the  same  throughout  : body  and  soul  being  the  current 
distinction  between  his  bodily  and  his  spiritual  elements;  body 
and  soul  and  spirit  expressing  this  with  reference  to  the  process 
of  religion. 


io6 


God  and  the  Creature. 


6.  How  is  all  this  sustained  by  scripture  ? 

(1)  The  first  record  that  underlies  all  declares  that  man 
was  created  in  the  Divine  image  ; therefore  as  a per- 
sonal spirit. 

(2)  He  became  a living  soul,  when  his  relation  to  the  earth 
is  mentioned.  His  spirit  in  God’s  image  was  a soul 
as  using  a bodily  organ  : the  soul  is  his  proper  self. 

(3)  Man’s  soul  as  regenerate  is  regarded  rather  as  spirit : 
That  which  is  horn  of  the  Spirit  is  spit'it.  And  the  spirit  not 
johniii.  6.  possessed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  is  regarded  rather  as 
Jude  19.  soul : Sensual^  or  animap  not  having  the  Spirit, 


Gen.  i.  26. 


Gen.  ii.  7. 


III. 


■^rot)i5encc. 

1.  What  is  the  meaning  of  Providence  ? 

It  expresses  the  truth  that  God  orders  and  governs  all 
things  for  the  attainment  of  the  purpose  of  their  creation. 

2.  How  is  this  found  in  the  word  ? 

The  word  providence  means  foresight  and  provision. 
Three  ideas  concur : Trpo^co-i?,  purpose  ; TTpovota,  provision  or 
forethought,  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  purpose  ; and 
7r/Qdyi/w(rt9,  which  is  the  purpose  regarded  as  accomplished,  and 
therefore,  as  every  purpose  of  God  must  be,  foreknown, 

3.  How  is  the  providence  of  Gfod  described  ? 

Precisely  as  His  creating  act  is  : with  the  same  relation  to 
the  Holy  Trinity.  As  the  Three  Persons  concurred  in  the 
beginning,  so  They  conspire  to  bring  all  things  to  their  end. 

4.  What  is  the  range  of  the  operation  of  providence  ? 

Most  widelv,  the  conservation  of  all  things  for  their  end  ; 
then,  more  specifically,  the  preservation  of  cheated  life  ; and, 
in  the  highest  sense,  the  government  of  moral  intelligences. 

§ 1.  pvobiDrnti'al  ©ouserbation. 

1.  What  is  meant  by  conservation  ? 

Not  merely  preservation  against  danger,  but  continuing 
all  things  in  existence  in  their  frame  and  harmony. 


Providence. 


107 


2.  In  what  way  is  this  attributed  to  God  ? 

The  Divine  omnipotence  is  always  the  ground  : God 
being  strong  in  power ^ not  one  faileth.  But  that  isa.  xi.  26. 
strength  is  put  forth  through  the  Son,  upholding  all  Heb.  i.  3. 
things  through  the  word  of  His  power.  If  this  is  the  Father^s 
power,  the  Son  Himself  exerts  it,  for  in  Him  all  ^ 
things  consist^  or  hold  together,  ° 

3.  Does  not  this  amount  to  continual  creation  ? 

Certainly  not : the  words  just  quoted  show  the  distinc- 
tion. As  also  the  words  : Thou  sendest  forth  Thy  ^ ^ 

Spirit.^  they  are  created : .and  2hou  renewest  the  face 
of  the  earth, 

4.  But  how  does  providence  apply  to  the  upholding  of  all? 

Because  nothing  exists  without  a purpose,  or  in  vain.  All 
things  subserve  an  ultimate  Divine  intention,  for  the  isa.  xiv.  18. 
attainment  of  which  they  are  preserved  or  hold  /•-  ^7- 

gether. 


6.  How  may  this  be  illustrated? 

(i)  As  it  regards  the  universal  economy  of  created  nature, 
the  eternal  counsel  of  providence  is  hidden  from  us.  Of  the  Son 
it  is  said  that  in  Him  were  ah  things  created.,  and, 
through  Him  and  unto  Him.,  who  is  before  all  things,  ° ^ 

\2)  As  it  regards  our  own  earth,  the  design  of  providence 
IS  plain  : the  earth  was  prepared  through  successive  ages  to  be 
the  abode  of  life  ; lower  life  was  ordained  to  give  support  to 
higher  ; and  the  highest  life  is  sustained  for  spiritual  ends. 


6.  Are  we  required  to  believe  that  the  conservation  of  created 
nature  is  maintained  by  the  direct  action  of  God  ? 


Yes;  for  there  is  no  power  but  the  Divine : In  Him  all 
things  consist  and  in  Him  we  live^  and  move.,  and  have  coi.  i.  17. 
our  being,  Acts  xvii.  28. 


7.  Do  not  great  difficulties  arise  here  ? 


There  is  no  difficulty  in  the  thought  that  the  Being  who 
gives  existence  to  all  things  is  present  to  them  in  His  power. 
The  pressure  arises  when  we  make  the  sustentation  of  God  lie 
at  the  root  of  things  evil  and  at  the  spring  of  evil  acts. 


io8 


God  and  the  Creature. 


8.  How  are  tliese  difficulties  met  ? 

The  expedient  of  Secondary  Causes  has  been  resorted  to, 
as  that  of  Concursus  or  natural  cooperation  of  the  Supreme 
apart  from  the  moral.  But  our  only  refuge  is  submission  to 
hidden  mystery. 

§ 2.  ?probi'tjenttal  Care. 

1.  What  is  meant  by  this  ? 

The  special  provision  made  by  the  wisdom  and  goodness 
of  God  for  the  sustenance,  preservation,  and  continuance  of  all 
organic  life : that  is,  of  those  creatures  of  God  within  the  outer 
sphere  of  the  universe  which  are  dependent  on  supplies  that 
do  not  naturally  come  and  the  absence  of  which  causes  suf- 
fering. These  two  conditions  do  not  apply  to  inorganic  matter. 

2.  Does  the  phrase  ‘‘the  providence  of  God^’  refer  to  this? 

It  does,  as  generally  used  to  distinguish  His  general  care 
of  His  creatures  : first,  from  the  conservation  of  all  things, 
and,  secondly,  from  the  government  of  the  Mediator  in  the 
kingdom  of  grace  and  the  Spirit’s  special  guidance  of  believers. 

3.  What  of  the  terms  general  and  special  providence  ? 

Strictly  speaking,  they  have  no  meaning.  God  equally 
provides  for  all  His  creatures  as  such.  Not  one  of  them  shall  fall 
Matt.  X.  29,  on  the  ground  without  your  Father^  spoken  of  the 
30-  sparrows,  and  The  very  hairs  of  your  head  are  all 

numbered^  spoken  of  men,  are  parallel,  notwithstanding  the 
But  between  them. 

4.  What  difference  does  the  But  signify  ? 

(i)  That  men  are  more  important  than  sparrows  ; and 
(2)  that  the  saints  are  objects  of  a special  complacency  and 
care  to  the  God,  not  so  much  of  providence  as,  of  grace. 

5.  What  are  the  difficulties  that  arise  here  ? 

(1)  The  lovingkindness  of  God  which  is  over  all  His 
works  subjects  the  lower  creation  to  the  law  of  preservation 

by  mutual  rapine,  and  to  great  misery  at  the  hands 
of  man. 

(2)  The  care  of  God  over  saints  does  not  distinguish 
them  from  the  ungodly  in  the  allotineiits  of  providence. 


Providence. 


log 


6.  And  how  are  these  difficulties  to  be  viewed  ? 

(1)  Some  they  drive  to  Antitheism  : in  the  form  at  least 
of  Dualism,  which  is  the  atheism  of  blind  reason. 

(2)  Others  take  refuge  in  a ruthless  fatalism,  disguised  as 
Predestinarianism. 

(3)  Those  who  accept  the  scriptures  are  by  them  instructed 
to  wait  for  the  solution  of  the  second  difficulty  at  i^ai.iii.14- 
the  future  world  and  the  day  of  judgment.  The  18. 
first  difficulty  is  never  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  which 

speaks  of  the  wild  beasts  which  roar  after  their  prey  and  seek 
their  meat  from  God, 

§ 3.  probiUenttal  ^obernment. 

1.  What  does  this  expression  signify  ? 

That  there  is  a sphere  of  providence  to  which  alone  the 
term  government  applies  : He  who  sustains  all  things,  and  cares 
for  creatures  as  such,  governs  moral  intelligences  and  governs 
them  providentially  or  according  to  a fixed  moral  order. 

2.  Then  this  includes  all  intelligent  beings  ? 

Yes  : we  perceive  that  in  probation,  law  and  judgment, 
spirits  and  men  are  one.  But  we  are  specially  concerned  with 
the  providential  government  of  our  own  race  : as  sinful,  as 
redeemed,  and  as  under  individual  process  of  salvation. 

3.  Then  this  doctrine  extends  over  a wide  range  ? 

It  embraces  literally  all : the  counsel  that  ordained  pro- 
bation, permitted  sin,  provided  for  its  abolition  by  a Redeemer, 
prepared  the  world  for  His  coming,  ordered  the  methods  of 
man’s  recovery,  overrules  all  things  for  the  spread  of  the 
Church  and  good  of  believers,  and  secures  the  ultimate  vindi- 
cation of  Divine  holiness.  With  reference  to  all  these  the 
terms  that  denote  providence  are  directly  or  indirectly  used. 

4.  Must  we  then  discuss  all  these  ? 

No  : but  prepare  for  them  as  they  arise  by  arming  our 
minds  with  the  conviction  that  the  wise  though  unfathomable 
counsel  of  a Personal  God  is  in  course  of  accomplishment. 

5.  Why  is  counsel  used  and  not  decrees  ? 

Because  the  idea  of  determinate  decree  is  not  con- 
sistent with  that  of  providence,  as  we  understand  it. 


no 


God  and  the  Creature. 


Reverence  would  accept  the  word  decree,  if  the  Supreme  used 
it  ; but  He  does  not  use  it,  nor  does  it  belong  to  the  three 
elect  words  which  make  up  our  doctrine.  The  representatives 
of  God  on  earth  issue  decrees  ; God  Himself  issues  them  to 
the  forces  and  ordinances  of  the  universe  ; but  His  purpose 
finds  other  terms  when  addressing  the  subjects  of  His  moral 
government. 


IV. 

'^feforical  discussions. 

1.  What  is  the  range  of  human  speculation  on  these  subjects  ? 

It  includes  the  greatest  questions  of  all  ages  : the  relation 
of  God  to  creation  and  providence  has  been  the  problem  of 
science  and  philosophy  since  they  began. 

2.  How  may  we  attempt  to  classify  these  speculations  ? 

Not  by  tracing  them  historically  ; since  the  very  same 
errors  appear  in  every  age  with  different  names  and  forms. 
They  may  be  reduced  to  three  : (i)  those  which  have  held  a 
kind  of  providence  without  creation  ; (2)  those  which  have 
asserted  a creation  and  rejected  providence;  and  (3)  those 
which  have  ignored  both  creation  and  providence. 

3.  What  systems  of  thought  have  represented  the  first  ? 

(1)  Those  which  belong  to  what  has  been  called  Dualism. 
In  the  Iranian  or  Persian  religion  the  idea  of  two  independent 
eternal  principles  was  predominant  : presiding  over  two  worlds 
of  spirit  and  matter.  But  in  the  conflict  of  these  powers  lay 
the  idea  of  providence,  controlling  the  evil. 

(2)  Polytheism  falls  undei  the  same  category.  The  in- 
numerable gods  of  almost  every  system  of  antiquity  were  the 
personifications  of  the  forces  of  nature  : expressing  in  this  way 
the  conception  of  a manifold  providence  of  one  God  over  all. 

(3)  In  the  refined  philosophy  of  Greece,  Plato  and 
Aristotle  represented  the  idea  of  a Divine  providence,  or  soul 
in  the  world,  moulding  uncreated  matter. 

(4)  Much  modern  scientific  thought  runs  in  that  direction  : 
substituting  for  creation  an  eternal  something  without  name, 
and  for  providence  an  immanent  force  without  reason.  The 


Historical  Discussions. 


Ill 


Positivists  and  Agnostics  may  be  reckoned  among  them  ; so 
far  as  they  deny  creation  by  pronouncing  the  beginning  of 
anything  unthinkable,  and  accept  a kind  of  providence  dis- 
guised under  the  irrational  conception  of  immanent  cause. 

4.  But  do  not  these  renounce  both  creation  and  providence  ? 

It  must  be  admitted  that  they  disavow  both  in  their 
Christian  meaning;  but,  while  they  deny  that  anything  can 
come  from  nothing,  they  are  obliged  to  confess  in  the  system 
of  things  all  the  ideas  that  belong  to  providence  : ends  con- 
templated ; ends  provided  for  ; ends  surely  attained.  Our 
word  they  deny,  but  they  “ ignorantly  worship  the  thing. 

5.  What  is  the  unreason  of  the  phrase  “ immanent  cause  ” ? 

Cause  must  be  independent  of  the  thing  affected  by  it> 
and  cannot  be  inherent.  Similarly,  there  can  be  no  law  with- 
out an  independent  being  who  acts  according  to  it. 

6.  How  is  creation  without  providence  represented  ? 

By  those  systems,  ancient  and  modern,  which  admit  the 
being  of  God  as  the  Cause  and  Source  of  all  things  ; but  deny 
the  proper  notion  of  His  providence. 

(1)  Epicurus  in  antiquity  denied  that  the  gods  were 
troubled  with  the  government  of  the  world  they  created. 

(2)  English  Deists  taught  the  same  thing,  when  they  in- 
sisted that  God  revealed  Himself  only  in  general  laws. 

(3)  Many  Christian  advocates  of  Evolution  are  in  danger 
of  the  same  error.  They  think  that  it  is  more  honourable  to 
the  Creator  to  represent  Him  as  having  impressed  on  the  ori- 
ginal germ  a tendency  to  develop  according  to  certain  deter- 
minate laws,  the  slow  operation  of  which  produces  all  the 
variety  of  the  universe,  than  to  make  His  power  a force  in- 
terposing occasionally.  Providence  in  this  theory  is  stripped 
of  its  middle  term  ; the  design  and  the  accomplishment  being 
retained,  but  the  intermediate  wisdom  being  absent. 

7.  May  evolution  be  made  consistent  with  our  doctrine  ? 

The  scriptural  account  of  the  secondary  creation  or  forma- 
tion of  all  things  combines  creation  and  providence : there  are 
the  creative  epochs,  in  the  intervals  of  which  providence  works 


II2 


God  and  the  Creature, 


ceaselessly  by  the  development  of  types.  Natural  selection, 
heredity,  and  the  survival  of  the  best  types  are  terms  which 
are  all  but  used  in  the  scriptures  : the  middle  one  is  used. 
Under  the  seventh  secular  day  of  Moses  we  now  live  : there  is 
no  longer  creative  intervention ; but  the  Creator  still  works 
in  a regular  development  which  preserves  the  original 

John  V.  17.  jypgg/ 

8.  Does  not  science  demand  far  more  than  this  ? 

Yes  ; but  without  justifying  its  demand.  All  the  evidence 
is  in  favour  of  certain  breaks  in  the  continuity  ; and  one 
breach  overturns  the  theory,  so  far  as  it  ascribes  all  phenomena 
to  evolution.  The  molecular  arrangement  of  atoms,  man  now 
what  he  ever  has  been,  and  the  persistence  of  the  self-conscious 
thinking  ego,  are  three  facts  to  which  no  bridge  leads. 

9.  What  theories  abolish  both  creation  and  providence  ? 

Only  two,  absolutely  and  wholly.  Pantheism  and  Ma- 
terialism : the  former  the  grandest,  the  latter  the  most 
grovelling,  delusion  of  the  human  mind. 

10.  What  is  the  position  of  Pantheism  to  the  question  ? 

It  is  a refuge  from  the  difficulty  of  supposing  aught  to  be 
outside  of  the  infinite  Being  : therefore  it  makes  God  all.  One 
eternal  Is  admits  no  creation,  no  providence. 

(1)  Ancient  pantheistic  systems  fell  far  short  of  this  idea  : 
they  supposed  an  infinite  One  from  whom  the  universe  ema- 
nated as  a transient  illusion  to  return  to  his  abyss. 

(2)  Pantheism  proper  is  a growth  of  modern  times.  In 
the  mysticism  of  the  middle  ages,  and  in  modern  absolute 
Idealism,  it  repeats  the  ancient  oriental  type.  But  in  Spinoza 
it  takes  its  most  consistent  form : mathematically  demonstrated 
and  yet  contradicted  by  the  primary  instincts  of  consciousnes-s. 

11.  What  is  the  position  of  Materialism  ? 

As  pantheism  makes  God  all,  so  materialism  makes  matter 
all.  Speculation  about  creation  and  its  cause,  about  thought  and 
its  dignity,  about  everything  outside  of  man,  is  only  itself 
matter  in  a peculiar  manifestation.  There  is  no  argument  against 
a system  which  suppresses  the  first  conditions  of  argument. 


BOOK  IV, 


Sin. 


I.  SIN,  GUILT,  PUNISHMENT. 
II.  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

IIL  HISTORICAL  THEORIES. 


Sin,  Guilt,  Punishment. 


115 


Chapter  I. 

§1.  Sm. 


1.  What  is  sin  ? 

The  voluntary  separation  of  the  soul  or  the  self  from  God. 
That  is  the  ultimate  mystery  of  sin  ; but  the  Scriptural  defi- 
nition, leaving  that  deep  mystery  untouched,  describes  it 
generally  in  its  manifestation  as  disobedience  to  the  Divine 
will. 

2.  What  does  this  presuppose  in  the  creature? 

Personality,  which  means  a self-conscious,  self-determin- 
ing, and,  in  the  creature,  responsible  agent. 

3.  What  does  it  presuppose  in  the  Creator? 

That  He  places  His  creature  in  a state  of  probation  or 
test,  with  freedom  of  will  : this  not  being  the  liberty  of  indif- 
ference, as  if  hovering  between  two  objects  of  choice  ; but  the 
perfect  freedom  of  union  with  God^s  will,  with  the  mysterious 
possibility  of  becoming  an  independent  spring  of  action. 

4.  What  is  the  specific  relation  of  sin  to  God? 

As  to  His  moral  government  and  law  it  is  disobedience  ; 
and  as  to  His  nature  it  is  ungodliness  or  unholiness.  There  is 
no  third  relation  to  God  conceivable. 

6.  Is  this  distinction  seen  in  the  names  given  to  sin  ? 

To  the  former  class  belong  one  series  of  terms,  such  as 
transgression,  rebellion,  lawlessness,  iniquity  ; and  to  the  latter 
another,  such  as  godlessness,  defilement,  selfishness  or  selfhood, 
and  evil  generally.  These  run  as  two  streams  through  the 
Bible. 


6 


ii6 


Sin. 


6.  Has  sin  an  analogous  relation  to  the  creature? 

As  it  is  his  revolt  against  Divine  law,  it  is  the  act  of  his 
creaturely  will ; as  it  is  separation  from  God  Himself,  it  becomes 
a state  of  man^s  sinful  nature.  Hence  it  is  always  to  be  pre- 
dicated of  the  act  or  of  the  character. 

7.  What  is  the  leading  definition  of  man’s  sin  in  Scripture  ? 

The  final,  and  as  it  were  generic  term  is  a/xaprta,  sin  as 
not  attaining  a mark  prescribed  ; All  have  sinned^  and  fall 
Rom.  iii.23.  short  of  the  glory  of  God,  But  the  last  definition  is 
ijohniii.4.  that  Stn  is  lawlessness;  Every  one  that  doeth 
sin  doeth  also  lawlessness^  r^v  avoixiav  : here  to  be  without  law 
is  to  be  against  law. 

8.  Where  then  is  the  seat  of  sin  to  he  first  sought  ? 

In  the  will  which  governs  the  act  of  the  person. 

9.  Is  this  a full  account  of  the  seat  of  sin  ? 

No : the  will  is  only  the  executive  of  the  personality  of 
the  man.  He  is  the  sinner  ; the  things  which  proceed  out  of 
Matt  XV  18  7nouth — and  also  the  will — come  forth  out  of 

the  hearty  whence  are  all  the  manifestations  of  evil, 
in  the  mind  and  in  the  affection  as  well  as  in  the  will. 

10.  What  effect  has  this  on  the  doctrine  of  sin  ? 

It  reminds  us  that,  besides  the  direct  act  which  is  sin,  the 
nature  of  the  man  who  sins  may  be  sinful  apart  from  the  act. 

11.  What  is  the  relation  betiv'een  the  act  and  the  character 

in  sin  ? 

The  act  forms  the  character  ; yet  out  of  the  character  the 
act  springs.  Hence  there  is  a mutual  relation.  But  it  is 
important  to  remember  that  sin  may  exist  without  any  overt 
act  : God  alone  sees  the  distinction,  and  knows  the  latent  sin. 

12.  But  how  could  sin  arise  in  the  heart  of  a creature 

formed  by  God  in  His  own  image  ? 

That  is  the  mystery  of  the  origin  of  evil,  which  it  is  not 
possible  for  the  finite  mind  to  fathom. 


Sin,  Guilt,  Punishment. 


117 


13.  Is  there  any  difference  between  sin  and  evil  ? 

Sin  is  the  cause  of  evil  ; but  the  effect  is  wider  than  the 
cause.  Evil  is  the  opposite  of  that  good  which  is  the  harmony 
of  the  universal  creation  of  God  and  the  blessedness  of  the 
intelligent  creature.  There  was  evil  before  human  sin  : the 
sin  of  man  gave  him  f/ie  hiowledge  of  good  and  evil  .j 
as  a distinction  already  existing. 

14.  How  may  the  distinction  be  referred  to  human  sin? 

As  man^s  sin  is  separation  from  God  its  effect  is  evil  or 
misery  ; as  it  is  transgression  of  His  law  it  is  the  guilt  that 
causes  the  evil,  or  rather  explains  and  justifies  its  infliction. 

§ 2.  etn'U. 

1.  What  is  guilt? 

Sin  as  objectively  reckoned  by  God  to  the  sinner,  and 
subjectively  reckoned  by  the  sinner  to  himself. 

2.  How  is  this  related  to  conscience? 

Conscience  is  the  faculty  that  unites  God^s  imputation  of 
sin  and  man’s  own  in  one.  ‘‘I  did  it,”  first  ; and,  then,  “I 
must  answer  for  it : ” these  two  being  undistinguishable. 

3.  What  does  this  conscience,  or  moral  consciousness,  pre- 

suppose ? 

That  on  the  mind,  or  reason,  of  the  personality  created 
in  the  image  of  God,  there  is  engraven  the  everlasting  prin- 
ciple of  obligation  to  the  Divine  law. 

4.  But  is  not  this  itself  the  conscience  ? 

No  : conscience  is  not,  strictly,  the  faculty  that  discerns 
between  right  and  wrong,  though  this  meaning  is  generally 
attached  to  the  word.  It  is  man’s  privity  to  himself,  or  with 
himself,  o-wetSrJo-t?,  as  to  his  own  conformity  to  the  law  other- 
wise given.  They  show  the  work  of  the  law  written 
t7i  their  hearts^  their  conscience  hearing  witness 
therewith^  and  their  thoughts  one  with  another  accusing  or  else 
excusing. 


ii8 


Sin. 


5.  Are  sin  and  guilt  or  the  conscience  of  sin  inseparable? 

These  are  joined  together  by  the  ordinance  of  God  ; but 
there  is  a distinction  in  guilt  which  modifies  this. 

6.  What  is  that  distinction  ? 

Guilt  is  the  imputation  of  the  act,  and  the  sinner  guilty  of 
the  fault,  which  is  reatus  culp^  ; and  it  is  the  imputation  of 
the  consequences,  and  the  sinner  guilty  as  to  the  consequences, 
which  is  REATUS  PCEN^ 

7.  How  is  this  distinction  preserved  in  the  terminology  ? 

(i)  The  sinner  is  guilty,  or  atnos,  having  in  himself  the 
ama,  or  cause,  of  his  sin.  l^hey  foii7id  no  cause^  or  charge^  or 
Acts  xiii  28  in  Him,  (2)  He  is  guilty,  or  eVo^o?, 

Markiii.*29.‘  obnoxious  to  judgment:  as  in  Guilty  of  an  eternal 
Matt.  V.  21.  danger  of  eternal  co7idemnation^  and  I71 

danger  of  the  judgment. 

8.  Are  the  guilt  of  the  act  and  the  guilt  of  the  conse- 

quences always  united? 

Apart  from  the  economy  of  redemption  they  are ; but 
that  economy  introduces  a great  modification. 

9.  How  may  that  be  seen  ? 

In  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  where  those  are  guilty  as 
to  the  consequences  of  the  act  who  were  not  guilty  of  the  act 
of  Adam.  In  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  where  One  is 
guilty  of  death  who  is  not  guilty  of  sin.  And  in  the  doctrine 
of  Justification,  where  the  guilt  of  the  sin  is  no  longer  imputed, 
but  some  of  the  consequences  still  follow. 

§ 3.  jpumssjment. 

1.  What  is  punishment  in  relation  to  evildoing  or  sin  ? 

The  infliction  of  penalty  on  the  sinner  in  vindication  of 
the  law  : that  is,  of  the  dignity  of  the  God  of  law. 

2.  What  principles  are  here  guarded? 

That  punishment  is  inflicted  in  requital  of  offence  and  is 


Sin,  Guilt,  Punishment. 


iig 


not  merely  a natural  consequence  of  sin  ; that  it  is  a vindica- 
tion or  avenging  of  dishonour  done  to  the  Lawgiver,  and  not 
merely  for  the  protection  of  moral  order  in  the  universe. 

3.  How  does  Scripture  express  these  two  points? 

Vengeance  {iK^UrjcrL^)  is  Mine^  I will  recompense 
(ai/TaTTo^wcra)),  saith  the  Lord:  the  former  as  to 

God  ; the  latter  as  to  man  j and  together  speaking 
of  strict  retribution. 


4.  Is  not  separation  from  God  the  sole  and  sufficient 

punishment  of  sin? 

Yes  : for  as  man’s  will  separating  himself  from  God  is  sin, 
so  the  punishment  of  sin  is  God’s  will  separating  man  from 
Himself.  But  that  is  not  a full  account  of  the  matter. 

5.  What  then  is  wanting  to  it  ? 

It  forgets  that  God  is  more  than  the  Supreme  Good, 
separation  from  Whom  is  the  consequence  of  sin.  He  is  also 
the  Moral  Governor  of  the  universe.  Whose  sacred  order  must 
be  maintained.  The  term  punishment,  like  the  term  guilt, 
strictly  belongs  to  the  province  of  God’s  rectoral  justice 


6.  Is  it  not  enough  to  say  that  sin  is  its  own  punishment? 

It  is  true  that  the  misery  of  sin  and  a guilty  conscience  is 
punishment.  But  it  is  not  true  that  God  punishes  sin  by 
further  sin : on  the  one  hand  this  supposition  is  inconsistent 
with  the  Divine  attributes ; and,  on  the  other,  it  confounds 
two  things  that  differ,  sin  and  the  punishment  which  results. 

7.  What  is  the  other  extreme? 

To  say  that  punishment  is  only  or  mainly  correction. 


8.  How  are  we  guarded  against  this  error  ? 

The  term  TratSeta,  correction  or  chastening,,  always  con- 
notes the  purpose  of  bringing  the  sinner  to  repent- 
ance, or  of  disciplining  God’s  children  not  yet  wholly 
delivered  from  sin.  Punishment  as  such  has  no  such  design  : 
the  terms  expressing  it,  such  as  death,  destruction,  imply  a 
totally  different  purpose. 


120 


Sin. 


9.  What  then  is  punishment  in  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  ? 

The  manifestation  of  the  wrath  of  God,  which  is  the 
expression  of  His  holiness  and  justice:  not  for  the  amendment 
Rom  i i8  sinner  but  for  the  vindication  of  the  law 

against  all  tmgodliness  and  unrighteous- 

•ness  of  men. 

10.  What  is  the  proper  punishment  of  sin  inflicted  by  the 

Divine  wrath? 

The  supreme  and  only  punishment  threatened  against  sin 
is  death  : the  death  of  the  sinning  soul. 

11.  Is  this  death  the  extinction  of  the  soul? 

Assuredly  not  : the  condemned  spirits  exist  still ; and  it 
Matt.  XXV.  is  everlasting  pimishment  that  is  threatened  against 
46.  obdurate  human  sinners.  There  is  no  word  for 
extinction  in  the  Bible. 

12.  Do  we  not  read  that  the  first  threatening  was  that  of 

physical  and  temporal  death  ? 

Yes,  but  not  of  that  only.  Physical  death  is  a subordinate 
form  of  the  punishment,  pertaining  only  to  embodied  spirits  ; 
and  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  punishment  of  sin  in  the 
abstract,  or  is  only  an  accident  of  it. 

13.  What  means  then  the  classiflcation  of  death  as  tem- 

poral, spiritual  and  eternal  ? 

That  belongs  to  the  doctrine  of  sin  as  connected  with  the 
economy  of  human  redemption  : that  is,  to  Original  Sin. 

14.  Must  we  not  think  of  degrees  of  sin  and  punishment? 

These  also  must  be  deferred  to  a later  stage  : we  have 
to  do  only  with  sin  and  death  in  their  principles. 

15.  But  is  not  this  whole  doctrine  inconsistent  with  the 

infinite  love  of  God? 

God  only  can  say  what  is  consistent  with  His  love.  But 
we  must  remember : ( i ) That  these  truths  run  through 

revelation  ; (2)  that  they  are  reflected  in  the  constitution 
of  nature,  and  in  the  human  conscience,  as  also  in  the  courts 
of  human  law  which  are  the  reflection  of  the  Divine  (/  have 


Sin^  Guilty  Punishment. 


I2I 


said^  Ye  are  gods) ; and  (3)  that,  so  far  as  the  race  of  mankind 
is  concerned,  they  are  to  be  studied  at  the  foot  of  ps.  ixxxii.  6. 
the  cross.  Who  knoweth  the  power  of  Thine  anger  f Ps.  xc.  h. 

16.  How  does  this  last  text  bear  on  the  whole  question  ? 

The  Divine  anger  is  a power  (opyrj)  infinite  as  His  being  ; 
the  calamities  of  mortals  are  only  finite  expressions  of  its 
irresistible  force ; but  the  fulness  of  His  displeasure  shall  never 
be  known  by  those  who  fear  God.  To  them  both  sin  and  the 
punishment  of  sin  are  abolished. 

17.  What  is  the  relation  of  the  cross  to  the  subject  ? 

(1)  It  gives  the  most  awful  proof  of  the  severity  of  the 
Divine  wrath  against  sin. 

(2)  It  proves  also  that  the  expression  of  that  wrath  cannot 
be  merely  for  chastisement  or  correction : this  could  not  be 
vicarious,  though  punishment  may  in  a certain  sense  be  so. 

(3)  The  solemn  declaration  is  that  Christ  redeemed  us 
from  the  curse  of  the  law,  having  become  a curse  for  Gai.iii.  13. 
us.  And  Him  who  knew  no  sin  He  made  to  be  sin  on  ^ Cor.  v.  21. 
our  behalf,^  that  we  might  become  the  i'ighteousness  of  God  in 
Him.  With  these  we  must  compare  the  two  parallel  revela- 
tions of  wrath  and  righteousness  in  the  forefront  of  Rom.  i.  17, 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

18.  How  does  the  constitution  of  nature  illustrate  it  ? 

Innumerable  calamities  assert  that  there  is  an  anger  abroad 
in  the  universe  which  is  not  simply  designed  for  correction. 

19.  And  how  the  human  conscience  ? 

By  the  inextinguishable  sentiment  that  connects  wrong- 
doing with  the  desert  of  due  punishment.  That  wrath  which 
is  revealed  from  heaven  may  be  said  also  to  be  re- 
vealed  within  the  human  heart : the  true  voice  of  ‘ ' 

man’s  conscience  for  ever  acknowledges  the  righteousness  of 
the  Divine  anger. 


122 


Sin, 


Chapter  II. 

Original  §xn. 

1.  What  is  meant  hy  Original  Sin  ? 

This  expression — not  found  in  Scripture — defines  sin  in  its 
relation  to  the  human  race  as  such.  It  is  the  fault  and  cor- 
ruption of  mankind  shared  by  every  individual  naturally  born 
into  it  : the  word  “ naturally  excluding  only  One. 

2.  What  is  the  force  of  the  term  Original  ? 

It  refers  simply  and  solely  to  the  derivation  of  mankind 
from  a common  stock.  Our  first  parents,  created  without  sin, 
nevertheless  transmitted  sin  to  their  posterity,  who  inherit  the 
consequences  of  their  first  fault. 

3.  In  what  sense  may  sin  be  transmitted? 

The  human  nature  propagated  is  sinful  as  alienated  from 
the  Divine  law  and  from  the  Divine  holiness. 

4.  How  is  the  fault  or  culpa  transmitted? 

Only  in  the  second  sense  of  guilt  : the  reatus  pcen^,  or 
liability  to  endure  the  consequences  of  sin. 

5.  How  is  the  corruption  transmitted? 

Only  in  the  second  sense  of  nature,  or  its  moial  tendency : 
this  being  contrary  to  the  Divine  nature. 

6.  What  definition  of  original  sin  is  thus  gained  ? 

It  is  the  transmission  of  hereditary  guilt  and  depravity 
from  Adam  to  all  his  descendants. 

7.  But  did  the  just  and  merciful  God  permit  Adam’s  race  to 

continue  only  under  these  hard  conditions? 

No  : He  placed  mankind  under  a covenant  of  grace 
through  a Mediator  to  be  revealed  in  the  fulness  of  time. 


8.  How  does  this  affect  our  definition  ? 

Original  sin  is  the  transmission  of  guilt  and  depravity 
under  a constitution  of  grace. 

9.  This  being  understood,  what  are  the  elements  of  our 

doctrine  ? 

(i)  The  original  sin  ; (2)  original  sin  under  the  covenant 
of  grace ; and  (3)  original  sin  in  its  developments  as  actual  sin. 

§ 1.  On'gmal  J6m. 

1.  What  is  meant  by  this  term  and  expression  ? 

The  first  sin  of  Adam  and  the  fall  of  man. 

2.  How  are  these  two  ideas  united  ? 

Adam  was  the  natural  head  and  representative  and  sum 
of  mankind  : so  that  his  sin  and  his  fall  were  the  sin  and  the 
fall  of  the  human  race. 

3.  In  what  sense  was  this  by  imputation? 

Imputation  has  two  meanings:  the  reckoning  to  the 
agent  his  own  act,  and  in  this  sense  his  sin  was  imputed  to 
A lam  ; also  the  reckoning  to  another  the  consequences  of  an 
act  not  his  own,  and  in  this  sense  Adam’s  act  is  reckoned  to  his 
descendants  in  common  with  himself. 

4.  How  can  we  meet  the  preliminary  objection  of  reason 

to  such  a transference  ? 

In  three  ways:  (i)  the  whole  economy  of  redemption  is 
based  upon  this  second  kind  of  imputation  ; (2)  it  has  its 
analogy  in  all  the  providential  dealings  of  God  with  man  ; and 
(3)  in  the  profound  mystery  of  our  relation  to  Adam  our 
individual  personality  is  not  really  separate  from  his. 

5.  What  is  the  theological  expression  of  this? 

Adam  was  the  natural  and  federal  head  of  the  race. 

6.  How  are  we  to  understand  this  covenant  of  federal  head- 

ship ? 

(i)  The  word  covenant  iiioans  generally  a Divine  disposi- 
6* 


124 


Sin. 


tion  or  order  or  arrangement  ; and  in  this  sense  Adam  was  as 
a creature  placed  under  a covenant  which  included  his  pos- 
terity in  him.  But  (2)  the  word  covenant  is  throughout 
Scripture  connected  with  sacrifice  and  a Mediator  ; in  this 
sense  Adam  was  not  placed  under  a covenant. 

7.  Then  the  Paradisaical  Covenant  of  Works  is  not  meant? 

No  such  covenant  with  Adam  as  the  surety  for  his 
posterity  is  mentioned  in  Scripture.  Apart  from  the  unre- 
vealed Mediator,  he  is  dealt  with  as  an  individual  creature  of 
God.  The  first  of  all  covenants  is  in  Christ. 

8.  Does  the  narrative  of  Genesis  sustain  this  view  ? 

(1)  The  record  itself  indirectly  suggests  it  in  two  ways. 
The  name  Adam  signifies  Man  : the  punishment  expressly 
refers  to  the  sorrows  of  human  birth  ; and  the  promise  connected 
with  it  embraces  the  seed  and  posterity  of  the  woman.  Thua 
the  unity  of  the  race  in  Adam  is  affectingly  bound  up  with  a 
coming  redemption. 

(2)  But  that  narrative  has  the  light  of  the  New  Testament 
thrown  upon  it  ; and  in  that  light  we  see  that  Another  joined 
him  in  suretyship  for  the  coming  race. 

9.  What  bearing  has  this  on  the  probation  of  man  ? 

The  narrative  of  the  fall  describes  the  issues  of  a trial 
under  which  Adam  failed.  But  it  also  describes  the  process  of 
probation  as  continued  under  other  conditions  for  mankind. 
The  probation  of  Adam  is  the  continuous  probation  of  man  ; 
in  his  case  it  was  conducted  with  reference  to  a coming 
Redeemer,  in  ours  with  reference  to  One  Who  has  come. 

10.  How  is  the  process  of  the  fall  described  ? 

A positive  law  was  given,  with  its  sanction  ; temptation 
from  without,  or  probationary  trial,  was  ordained  of  God  and 
permitted  to  Satan ; the  sinless  will  was  free,  or  under  no  re- 
straint ; and  sin  appeared  in  human  nature  as  disobedience. 

11.  What  is  meant  here  by  the  sinless  will  being  free  ? 

The  sinlessness  of  the  will  wa's  its  being  one  with  the  will 


125 


Original  Sin. 


of  God,  and  therefore  not  yet  a personal  self-determination. 
But  there  was  in  it  the  possibility  of  becoming  the  will  of  self, 
independent  of  God. 

12.  What  principles  must  we  bring  to  the  study  of  these 

points  ? 

We  must  remember  (i)  that  a state  of  things  is  described 
of  which  we  who  read  have  no  experience,  and  the  whole  is 
the  revelation  of  a mystery  to  us  unfathomable  ; (2)  that  all  is 
set  forth  in  the  language  with  which  our  experience  has  made 
us  familiar,  and  the  first  sinners  are  presented  to  us  as  if 
tempted  and  falling  like  ourselves  ; (3)  that  the  grace  of 
redemption  and  the  coming  of  a future  trial  are  bound  up  with 
the  whole  narrative  ; and  (4)  that  the  histor}’  of  real  facts  is 
also  the  history  of  symbolic  facts  : every  incident  in  the  record 
is  connected  with  outward  signs  having  their  spiritual  meaning. 

13.  Is  not  this  very  much  like  the  allegorical  or  mythical 

interpretation  ? 

Allegory  teaches  truth  through  parable  not  based  on  fact. 
Myth  invents  both  the  truth  taught  and  the  history  that 
teaches  it.  Here  we  have  a true  history  bound  up  with 
symbols  which  must  be  spiritually  discerned. 

14.  What  obliges  us  to  hold  fast  the  truth  of  the  history  ? 

(1)  The  record  of  Beginnings  in  Genesis  requires  it  : as 
symbolical  teaching  is  based  on  history  in  the  first  chapter  -so 
it  is  in  the  second. 

(2)  The  New  Testament  treats  the  narrative  as  historical. 
Our  Lord  assumes  this  when  he  says.  He  which  made  them  at 
the  beginning,  made  them  male  and  female,^  and  speaks 

of  the  MiLvderer  fro7u  the  beginning.  So  does  St.  john’viii.’44. 
Paul  when  he  says  that  the  serpent  beguiled  Eve  ^Cor.  xi.  3. 
through  his  subtilty^  and  throughout  his  doctrine  of  original  sin 
and  death. 

15.  How  may  we  understand  the  positive  law  and  its 

sanction  ? 

(i)  The  law  of  God  was  engraven  on  the  heart  of  man, 
but  not  as  law  proper  : the  one  positive  or  special  command- 
ment was  a test  of  obedience.  Thus  it  pleased  God  that  His 


126 


Sin. 


creatures  should  in  one  sense  already  know  the  distinction  of 
good  and  evil. 

(2)  The  U'ee  of  the  k7iowledge  of  good  and  evil  was  both 
law  and  sanction  of  law.  Sanction  means  the  protection 
Gen.ii.  17.  thrown  around  commandment,  whether  by  promise 
Gen. ii.  17.  or  threatening;  but  the  deterrent  sanction  alone 
was  necessary,  and  that  took  the  form  of  prediction.  Thou  shall 
surely  die, 

(3)  To  abstain  from  the  tree  would  be  obedience  : the 
knowledge  of  good  as  good.  To  eat  of  it  would  be  disobedience, 
and  bring  the  conscious  knowledge  of  evil  too.  Before  eating, 
the  knowledge  was  theoretical;  afterwards  it  was  practical. 

16.  How  is  temptation  from  without  described? 

Man  had  no  sinful  hnOvixia^  or  lust,  by  which  he 
might  be  drawn  away  and  enticed:  only  innocent  desire  for 
jas.i.14.  spiritual  and  sensuous  gratification  which  might 
Col.  iii.  5.  become  sinful,  the  natural  concupiscence  which 
might  turn  to  evil  concupiscerice  {iTnOvjjLiav  KaKi^v). 

(2)  The  tempter,  Satan,  himself  the  original  sinner,  was  per- 
mitted to  assail  that  innocent  desire,  whether  spiritual 
Gen.  m.  5.  seiisuous  I the  former  by  urging  Ye  shall  be  as 
gods;  the  latter  by  acting  on  the  desire  to  eat  the  forbidden  fruit. 

17.  Can  we  understand  the  process  of  interior  temptation? 
We  cannot  ; since  tlie  only  temptation  of  which  we  have 

experience  assails  a mother  lust  already  in  man,  his  own  lust. 
Our  Lord,  without  that  lust,  was  tempted  ; but  He 
jas.  1. 14.  could  not  sin,  being  the  Son  of  God.  It  is  vain 
therefore  to  speculate  as  to  a mystery  which  is  unfathomable. 
Suffice  that  the  mystery  stands  revealed  before  us : fact  shows 
that  the  creature  may  come  to  a guilty  consciousness  of  a self 
separated  from  God. 

18.  What  was  the  resulting  sin  ? 

(1)  In  its  hidden  secret  the  sin  began  in  listening  to 
another  than  God  ; from  that  moment  Satan  became  virtually 
the  god  of  this  world. 

(2)  As  we  see  its  working,  it  was  first  sensual.  The  tree  was 

Ge  *“  6 for  food  and  pleasa^it  to  the  eyes:  and  then 

* spiritual,  it  was  to  he  desired  to  make  one  wise. 


Original  Sin. 


127 


(3)  But  in  both  the  spirit  of  the  mind  must  have  been 
then  as  always,  the  seat  of  the  transgression.  Eph.  iv.23 

19.  In  what  sense  was  this  the  fall  of  man  ? 

(i)  It  was  active,  first  as  internal  and  then  as  external  : 
irapaKOY)^  disobedience.  And  passive,  a fall  from  the  estate  of 
life  into  that  of  death  : 7rapa7rro)/xa,  in  the  original  meaning  of 
that  word. 

20.  Is  the  beginning  of  human  sin  called  in  Scripture  the 

fall? 

Indirectly  it  is.  St.  Paul  teaches  that  By  the  trespass  of 
die  one  the  many  died.  In  the  apocryphal  book  of  Rom.  v.  15. 
Wisdom  this  word  is  translated  fall : Wisdom  is  said  wisd.  x.  i. 

have‘‘  preserved  the  first  formed  (or  protoplast)  father  of  the 
world,  and  brought  him  out  of  his  fall.^^  In  both  places  the 
word  is  TrapdirTw/xa, 

21.  Why  then  have  we  spoken  of  the  fall  of  man  or  mankind  ? 

(1)  Because  Adam,  the  first  man,  was  the  natural  head  of 
the  human  race  ; even  as  Christ,  the  last  Adam,  is  its  spiritual 
head. 

(2)  Eve  being  beguiled  fell  in  the  transgression.,  received 
the  first  doom  and  the  first  promise.  She  was  only  ^ u.  14. 
the  mother  of  all  living^  but  Adam  was  the  father  and  Gen.  m.  20. 
representative  of  all. 

22.  What  was  the  immediate  consequence  of  the  fall? 

(i)  Man  died  by  separation  from  God:  a mystery  known 
in  its  effects  ; (2)  he  felt  the  sting  of  death  which  is  j cor.xv.56. 
the  conscience  of  sin;  (3)  he  fell  under  the  bondage  Heb.ii.  14. 
of  Satan,  who  had  the  power  of  death;  (4)  and  his  moral 
nature  became  disordered  : so  that  his  spirit  became  enslaved 
to  the  flesh,  and  the  world  over  which  he  was  to  rule  began  to 
rule  over  him. 

§ 2.  Original  Sm  tinter  tl)e  Cobenant  of  6rarr. 

1.  What  is  conveyed  by  this  theme  ? 

That  the  transmission  of  sin  to  the  race  must  at  all  points 


128 


Sin. 


be  studied  in  connection  with  the  great  provision  for  its 
removal,  counteraction,  or  mitigation. 

2.  How  may  the  general  principles  of  this  connection  he 
established  ? 

By  combining  and  weighing  many  particulars,  first  in 
the  history  of  the  fall,  and  secondly  in  the  New-Testament 
explanation  of  it  : the  latter  having  preeminence. 


Rom.  viii. 


Gen.iii.  15. 


3.  What  indications  have  we  in  the  early  narrative? 

(1)  The  judgments  threatened  or  predicted  were  evidently 
arrested.  Though  man’s  body  was  dead  because  of  sin^  that 

death  was  only  a coming  evil  ; though  his  soul  was 
alienated  froryi  the  life  of  God^  God  came  to  the 
Eph.  IV.  18.  sinner  and  still  communed  with  him  ; though  he  fell 
under  the  bondage  of  Satan,  he  heard  it  said  to  Satan,  It — 
the  seed  of  the  woman — shall  bruise  thy  head ; 
though  he  found  the  earth  outside  different  from 
the  garden  whence  he  was  driven,  it  was  yet  to  sustain  the 
life  that  was  already  redeemed. 

(2)  While  the  religious  history  of  Adam  and  Eve  is 
passed  over,  we  see  that  the  worship  of  God  by  sacrifice  enters 

into  the  narrative  as  an  established  fact  and  runs  on 
Gen.  IV, 3.  unbroken.  In  short,  a new  method  of  approach  to 
the  Divine  Being  glides  blessedly  into  the  outer  world  of  man’s 
banishment. 

(3)  Thus  an  unrevealed  Saviour  seems  to  intercept  the  full 
effects  of  sin  : coming  in  as  it  were  between  the  fall  and  the 
propagation  of  the  fallen  race. 


4.  What  is  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament  ? 

(1)  Generally  that  Adam  was  the  type  of  Him  that  was 

to  come  : not  the  type  of  what  should  come  to  his 
Rom.  V.  14.  posterity,  but  a personal  type  of  a personal  Antitype. 

(2)  The  original  transgression  and  death  its  penalty  are 
revealed  in  their  full  spiritual  meaning. 

(3)  Every  description  of  original  sin  as  such  and  every 
allusion  to  it  is,  without  exception,  connected  more  or  less 
directly  with  the  grace  of  the  atonement. 

(4)  The  symbols  of  the  garden  of  probation  have  their 


interpretation  : The  tree  of  life^  and  That  old  serpent^  called  the 
devil  and  Satan,  especially.  We  gather  that  the  tree  Rev.ii.7. 
of  life  was  the  sign  or  sacrament  of  immortality  ; and  xii.  9. 
that  exclusion  from  it  shut  the  human  race  up  to  another  way 
of  life. 

5.  What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  two  Adams  ? 

Strictly  speaking,  there  is  no  such  doctrine  in  Scripture 
St.  Paul  once  calls  the  Redeemer  the  last  Adam ^ as  1C0r.xv.45 
distinguished  from  the  first  man  Adam  : and  this  47- 
in  reference  to  the  resurrection.  The  first  man  is  of  the  earthy 
earthy  : the  second  man  is  of  heaven.  Comparing  this  with 
other  teaching,  theology  has  made  Adam  and  Christ  two 
several  heads. 

6.  How  far  does  the  parallel  hold  ? 

(1)  If  in  the  Christy  the  last  Adam  at  the  end  of  tne  race^ 
all  shall  he  made  alive ^ even  as  in  Adam^  at  the 
beginning  of  the  race,  all  die^  the  two  heads  must  ^ or.xv.22. 
each  include  all  mankind. 

(2)  But,  while  the  race  receives  some  benefit  from  its 
better  Head,  He  is  really  the  Father  only  of  a new  humanity, 
spiritually  and  not  naturally  receiving  life  from  Him.  And  it 
is  the  relation  between  that  universal  benefit  and  this  more 
limited  one  which  concerns  the  doctrine  of  original  sin. 

Original  Conliemnatton  as  untier  (State. 

7.  How  is  original  sin  as  universal  condemnation  connected 

with  the  first  and  the  second  man  ? 

St.  Paul,  in  what  may  be  called  the  classical  chapter  on 
the  subject  of  sin,  unfolds  its  genesis  in  the  following  way: 

(i)  In  a fivefold  gradation,  he  traces  it  to  Adam.  Through 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  worlds  and  death  through 
sin  ; and  so  death  passed  unto  all  men^for  that  (or,  on  — ^9- 
the  ground  that)  all  sinned.  They  did  not  die  for  their  own  sin, 
yet  sin  was  imputed  to  them  in  its  consequences  fro7n  Adam 
unto  Moses^  even  over  them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  likeness 
of  Adam'' s transgression.  More  specifically,  by  the  trespass  op 
the  one  the  many  died ; and  still  more  so,  the  judgment  came 
of  one  unto  condemnation.  And  that  condemnation  was  death 


130 


Sin. 


in  full  sway  : by  one  mail's  offence  death  reigned  by  one.  And 
upon  all  the  race  : by  the  offence  of  one  it  came  upon  all  men 
to  condemnation  : and  many  were  made  sinners. 

(2)  Beginning  with  the  second  of  the  five,  St.  Paul  intro- 

duces Him  that  was  to  come^  and  the  gift  by  the  grace  of  the  one 
Rom.  V.  14  j which  came  of  many  trespasses  unto  justifica- 

—19-  tion,^  or  an  act  of  original  righteousness  parallel  with 
original  condemnation  ; through  which  they  that  make  it  their 
own  shall  reign  in  life  by  One^  Jesus  Christ,  For  by  the  obedience 
of  One  shall^  in  this  higher  sense,  many  be  made  righteous, 

(3)  And  all  this  follows  a fourfold  description  of  the 
character  of  universal  sin  as  in  man,  each  description  being 
connected  with  the  atonement  : While  we  were  yet  weak,  in 
Rom.  V.  6, 8,  season  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly.  While  we 

10.  were  yet  sinners  Christ  died  for  us.  While  we  were 

ENEMIES,  we  were  reconciled  to  God,  The  cross  is  in  the  middle 
of  the  four. 

(4)  Throughout  the  whole  the  gift  by  the  grace  of  the 
One  Man  reigns  and  governs  the  doctrine.  The  grace  is  the 

fountain  opened  for  sin  and  uncleanness  at  the 
om.  V.  15.  of  world  ; and  the  gift,  the  Free 

Gift,  is  that  grace  in  its  first  and  most  universal  form. 

8.  Is  this  doctrine  of  original  condemnation  and  grace 

taught  only  by  St.  Paul  and  in  this  chapter  alone  ? 

Formally  it  is  here  alone  ; but  then  it  is  taught  as  the 
foundation  of  the  entire  fabric  of  the  atonement. 

9.  What  effect  has  this  combination  on  our  doctrine  ? 

It  is  relieved  of  an  apparent  inconsistency  with  the 
Divine  justice  ; the  condemnation  to  the  evils  of  mortality  is 
not  connected  with  final  condemnation  ; God  is  not  seen  to 
be  reconciling  Himself  to  the  world  but  the  world  to  Himself  ; 
no  one  is  eternally  punished  for  the  sin  of  Adam  ; and  every 
penitent  believer  is  assured  of  a more  abundant  blessing  than 
was  forfeited  by  his  first  parent. 

10.  Why  then  should  the  definition  of  original  sin  preserve 

the  element  of  a rescinded  hereditary  condemnation  ? 

Because  the  vicariousness  and  universality  of  ChrisPs 
redeeming  work  both  demand  its  clear  assertion. 


Original  ?3eprabitp  as  unDer  €^rare. 

11.  How  is  original  sin  as  depravity  connected  with  the 

first  and  the  second  man  ? 

Not  so  directly  as  its  condemnation  ; but  it  is  every- 
where presupposed  in  Scripture  that  the  effect  of  the  atone- 
ment saved  the  nature  of  man  from  utter  ruin. 

12.  What  are  the  Scriptural  testimonies  that  lead  to  this? 
They  may  be  classed  under  three  heads  : (i)  those  which 

represent  the  benefit  of  the  atonement  as  provided  before  sin 
began  ; (2)  those  which  speak  of  Christ  as  the  light  of  all  men  ; 
and  (3)  those  which  expressly  refer  to  an  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  striving  with  man  from  the  beginning. 

13.  Show  the  hearing  of  the  first. 

It  is  said  that  the  sacrificial  Lamb  was  foreknoivn  indeed 
before  the  foundation  of  the  worlds  and  slain  from  the  ^ peter  i.  20. 
foundation  of  the  world.  The  benefit  of  the  atone-  xiu.  8. 
ment  is  twofold  as  it  respects  the  world  : as  a propitiation  it 
abolished  the  condemnation  of  the  race,  and  as  an  atonement 
or  reconciliation  it  procured  the  Spirit  of  grace. 

14.  May  we  call  this  a restoration  of  the  Spirit? 

It  is  better  to  say  that  the  Spirit  was  not  totally  with- 
drawn. The  Son,  in  whose  image  man  was  made,  Hi.  16, 
did  not  leave  the  race,  though  He  is  said  to  be  a Gift  iv.  10. 
to  man.  So  the  Spirit  did  not  leave  the  race,  though 
He  also  is  said  to  be  a Gift.  The  gift  (^wpea)  applies 
to  both,  though  in  this  passage  it  refers  rather  to  release  from 
condemnation. 

15.  What  evidence  do  we  find  in  the  history  of  the  fall? 
The  consciousness  of  guilt  in  our  first  parents  was  also  the 

sense  of  shame  : they  knew  that  they  were  naked  and 
hid  themselves.  This  does  not  permit  the  thought  of 
an  entire  death  of  the  spiritual  nature ; shame  is  the  dawn  of 
repentance. 

16.  What  in  the  early  development  of  sin? 

We  see  that,  though  every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of 


132 


Sin. 


his  heart  was  only  evil  continually^  yet  the  Spirit  of  God  strove 
with  the  sinner  ; My  Spirit  shall  not  always  judge  in 
Gen.  VI.  5, 3.  their  wandering  they  are  Jiesh.  Here  it  is 

probable  that  the  flesh  has  the  full  meaning  which  our  Saviour 
gave  it. 

17.  And  what  in  general  allusions  to  original  depravity  in 

the  Old  Testament? 

Two  may  here  stand  for  many:  that  of  Job,  Who  can 
bring  a clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean  ? Not  one ; and  that  of 
Job.  xiv.  4.  David,  hi  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me.  But  these 
Ps.  ii.  5.  and  all  like  them  make  inbred  sin  ground  of  appeal 
to  the  mercy  of  God,  as  if  the  very  depravity  had  a claim  upon 
compassion. 

18.  What  is  the  Saviour’s  testimony  above  referred  to  ? 

(i)  That  which  is  horn  of  the  flesh  is  flesh.  Here  we  must 
note  two  things  : that  original  depravity  is  called  the  flesh  as 
in  the  beginning  of  human  history  ; and  that  our 
John  111.  6.  Lord  introduces  this  inherited  bias  only  to  parallel  it 
with  the  new  birth  : That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit. 
Thus,  as  we  have  seen  that  the  testimonies  to  original  con- 
demnation are  bound  up  with  those  of  an  original  relief,  so 
original  depravity  is  bound  up  with  original  provision  to 
neutralise  it.  (2)  When  our  Lord  said,  If  ye  then 
att.vii.ii.  jj^tng  evil  know  how  to  give  good  gifts  unto  your 
children,,  He  most  clearly  asserted  both  original  sin  and  original 
grace  in  human  nature. 

19.  What  influence  has  this  on  the  doctrine? 

It  shows  that  something  is  left  in  man  for  redemption  to 
work  upon  ; that  the  image  of  God  was  not  entirely  effaced  ; 
therefore  that  human  nature  must  not  be  regarded  as  hopelessly 
corrupt  ; and  that  the  will  of  man  universal  is  under  a measure 
of  restraining  and  prompting  and  assisting  grace. 

20.  What  justifies  our  attributing  this  to  the  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit? 

He  is  and  ever  has  been  the  Administrator  of  the  media- 
Heb  X torial  work  of  Christ  ; and  as  He  is  the  Spirit  of 
eo.x.  29.  gYdce  all  tendencies  to  good  must  come  from  Him. 


Original  Sin. 


133 


21.  What  light  does  this  shed  upon  human  nature? 

It  shows  that  it  was  not  utterly  marred  ; and  explains  how 
the  inward  man  still  remained,  not  without  the  germ  Rom.yii.  22. 
of  good.  It  accounts  also  for  the  Gentiles  having  A?t?xvii^27, 
the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts^  and  gives  22. 
their  true  force  to  St.  Paul’s  words  ; though  He  be  not  far 
from  each  one  of  us, 

22.  How  does  it  hear  on  the  freedom  of  the  will  ? 

The  freedom  of  the  will,  strictly  speaking,  was  unaffected 
by  the  fall  ; though  as  a tendency  of  the  will  towards  good  it 
ceased.  But  the  coming  recovery  gave  to  the  will  a secret 
bias  towards  good  as  lost,  impressed  on  it  a certain  restraint 
from  evil,  and  bestowed  a measure  of  power  to  seek  recovery. 

23.  What  terms  are  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  define 

original  sin  as  depravity  ? 

Sin  generally,  as  when  this  is  said  to  have  reigned  in 
death;  but  it  is  spoken  of  by  St.  Paul  as  My  fleshy  ^ 
or  the  Law  in  my  members^  or  The  carnal  mind.  It  Rom!vii.23. 
is  not  selfishness,  nor  the  old  man:  the  former  is  a ^^"’•viii.7. 
manifestation  of  the  flesh,  and  the  latter  connotes  figuratively 
its  growth  to  maturity. 

24.  Then  the  flesh  is  the  main  definition? 

Yes,  the  flesh  has  two  meanings  in  Scripture  : human 
nature  as  in  the  body  of  transitoriness,  and  in  that  sense  our 
Saviour  partook  of  the  same;  human  nature  as  Heb.  n.  14. 
swayed  by  sin,  and  our  Lord  came  only  in  the  Rom.  vUi.3. 
likeness  of  sinful  flesh, 

§ 3.  C^n'gmnl  ant  victual  Sin, 

1.  What  is  the  relation  between  these? 

Original  sin,  as  the  inborn  bias,  is  the  source  of  all  the 
particular  sins  of  mankind  and  all  forms  of  sinful  habit. 

2.  How  are  we  taught  to  understand  original  sin  as 

existing  before  actual  sin  ? 

It  is  said  to  be  present  but  latent  until  the  law  awakens 
it : there  is  a time  when  the  moral  consciousness  of  personality 
and  of  sinfulness  awake  together,  the  one  never  being  regarded 
as  without  the  other.  The  I and  my  guilt  spring  up  as  one. 


134 


Sin. 


3.  How  does  St.  Paul  assert  this? 

In  Romans  vii.,  which  contains  as  it  were  the  history  of 
sin  in  man,  he  says  that  he  was  alive  apart  from  the  law 
Rom.  vii.  g.  ojice^  but  stn  revived  and  I died.  For  through  the 
Rom.iii.  20.  law  cometh  the  knoivledge  ofsm:  in  a certain  sense 
this  is  as  true  in  every  man  of  his  race  as  in  Adam  himself. 

4-.  But  does  not  this  make  the  appearance  of  sin  in  the 
individual  his  own  fall? 

We  are  not  to  suppose  that,  as  the  condemnation  of 
original  sin  is  abolished  by  the  atonement,  so  also  the  bias  of 
it  is  destroyed.  This  is  its  mystery,  that  it  lies  in  the  nature 
ready  to  be  revealed.  No  new  fall  is  to  be  thought  of. 

6.  This  bein^  the  ultimate  principle  of  sinful  bias,  what 
principles  govern  the  various  manifestations  of  it  ? 

These  arose  under  many  influences.  As  the  deep  bias  of 
sin  comes  from  the  more  distant  head  of  the  race,  so  forms  of 
that  bias  may  be  inherited  from  the  more  immediate  pro- 
genitor. The  individual  constitution  gives  a character  to 
individual  sinfulness.  So  every  position  or  course  in  life 
affects  and  directs  its  manifestations. 

6.  What  are  the  leading  classifications  of  actual  sin  ? 

Life  is  not  more  diversified  than  the  sin  of  life.  But 
there  are  certain  principles  of  arrangement. 

(1)  As  to  the  sinner  himself,  sin  is  of  thought  or  word  or 
act ; and  also  of  the  flesh,  as  using  the  body,  and  of  the  spirit, 
as  independent  of  the  body. 

(2)  As  to  the  object;  sin  is  supremely  against  God,  but 
also  against  the  neighbour  and  against  self. 

(3)  Viewed  as  to  law,  sin  is  of  commission  or  omission  ; it 
is  also  voluntary  or  involuntary : this  last  being  subdivided 
into  sins  of  ignorance,  precipitancy,  and  infirmity. 

(4)  In  respect  to  temptation,  sin  is  the  lust  of  the  fleshy  or 
I John  ii.  16.  the  lust  of  the  eyes^  or  the  vainglory  of  life, 

7.  What  may  be  said  of  such  a classification  ? 

That  all  sins  are  manifestations  of  one  and  the  selfsame 


Original  Sin. 


135 


principle  ; that  the  several  orders  of  sin  are  to  be  estimated  by 
that  and  not  by  their  apparent  variations  in  evil ; and  finally, 
that  such  analyses  are  useful  chiefly  in  Christian  ethics. 

8.  What  is  the  Scriptural  doctrine  as  to  the  degrees  of  sin  ? 

In  both  Testaments  degrees  of  guilt  are  recognised ; (i)  in 
the  Old,  we  read  of  secret  sins  and  presumptuous  sins  ; of  sins 
for  which  atonement  was  accepted  and  of  sins  for  which  the 
Levitical  economy  provided  no  remission.  (2)  In  the  New, 
our  Lord  speaks  of  the  debtor  of  Jive  hundred  pence  L^ke  vii.  41. 
and  of  Jifty;  and,  still  more  expressly,  of  him  that  Johnxix.  n. 
had  the  greater  sin. 


9.  How  does  the  New  Testament  apply  this  truth  ? 

.(i)  To  show  that  Divine  mercy,  through  the  great  atone- 
ment, extends  to  all  transgression  : the  Divine  charity  that 
shall  cover  a multitude  of  sins  as  the  pattern  of  the 
human.  _ 

To  direct  our  thought  to  the  one  centre  and  source  of 
the  fountain  which  must  be  cleansed. 

To  impress  on  us  that,  notwithstanding  the  tolerance 
whosoever  shall  keep  the  whole  laWj  and  yet 


(2) 

all  evil : 

(3) 

of  God 

stumble  in  one  point.^  he  is  become  giulty  of  all. 


Jas.  ii.  10. 


10.  What  is  taught  as  to  the  progress  and  stages  of  sin  ? 

(1)  That  acts  of  transgression  form  the  general  character 
and  specific  habits : towards  this  every  deed  contributes, 
however  insensiblv,  in  those  who  become  accustomed 

to  do  evil. 

(2)  That  resistance  to  grace  strengthens  the  power  to 

resist : till  men  become  branded  in  their  own  con-  ^ 'pim.  iv.  2 
science  and  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost.  Acts  vii.  51. 

(3)  Sin  then  becomes  either  insensibility  or  hypocrisy  or 
blasphemy : three  stages,  or  different  forms  of  the  final  stage, 
which  are  distinguished  in  Scripture.  The  first  denotes  that 
the  heart  is  hardened  by  the  deceitfulness  of  sin ; 

the  second,  that  indifference  to  Divine  things  makes 
a pretence  to  honour  them ; and  the  third  utters  the  feeling  of 
the  heart  in  impious  contempt  of  God  and  religion. 

(4)  And  these  issue  in  what  the  Scriptures  call  hardening 


136 


Sin. 


or  reprobation  ; which  is  the  anticipation  in  this  world  of  the 
final  sentence  : sin  and  punishment  united  in  one. 


11.  What  is  the  extreme  form  of  reprobation? 

The  sentence,  already  passed,  upon  the  sin  against  the 
Holy  Ghost : as  that  sin  is  generally  called  which  is  thrice  in 
the  New  Testament  excluded  from  hope. 

(1)  By  our  Saviour,  who  says  : Whosoever  shall  blaspheme 
against  the  Holy  Spirit  hath  7iever  forgiveness^  but  is  guilty  of 

an  eternal  sin.  This  is  the  rejection  of  the  last 
Mark  111.  29.  clearest  manifestation  of  God  the  Holy  Trinity. 

(2)  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  those  who  do  not  press 

on  unto  perfection,^  but  reject  the  Saviour  and  put  Him  to  an 
Heb.  vi.  1, 6,  shame,,  are  for  ever  unforgiven,  because  there 

X,  26.  remaineth  no  more  a sacrifice  for  sins : they  re- 
nounce the  only  refuge. 

(3)  And  therefore,  in  St.  John’s  language,  they  commit  a 

sin  unto  death,  for  which  the  apostle  does  not  exhort 

I John  V 16.  . ^ 

•'  us  to  pray. 


12.  Is  such  a sin  consistent  with  probation  under  the  in- 

finite mercy  of  God  ? 

In  each  instance  the  sin  is  supposed  to  shut  itself  from 
mercy.  But  no  man  can  commit  this  last  offence  who  dreads 
it  or  fears  that  he  has  committed  it. 

13.  What  is  the  character  of  sin  in  the  regenerate? 

Strictly  speaking,  it  is  reduced  to  original  sin  : for  whoso- 
ever is  begotten  of  God  doeth  no  sin.  That  original  sin  is 
ijohniii.  9.  the  flesh  which,  in  its  first  expression  of  itself, 
Gal. V.  17, 24.  lusteth  against  the  Spirit ; but  the  regenerate  have 
crucified  the  flesh,,  with  the  passiotis  aftd  the  lusts  thereof ; and 
this  gives  their  sin  a peculiar  character  and  aggravation.  But 

for  such  sins  there  is  a special  intercession  : We  have 
I John  11. 1.  Advocate  with  the  Father, 

14.  How  are  actual  sins  effectually  done  away? 

Only  by  the  removal  of  the  sin  that  is  behind  all. 

15.  Meanwhile  is  sin  imputed  to  the  regenerate? 

There  is  therefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them  that  are 


137 


Original  Sin. 


in  Christ  Jesus.  But  the  evil  that  remains  “ hath  of  itself  the 
nature  of  sin,”  requiring  the  constant  virtue  of  the  Rom.  via.  i. 
blood  which  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin^  and  the  i John  1.7. 
constant  exercise  of  penitence. 


§ 4.  I^iston'cal. 

1.  What  has  been  the  current  of  thought  concerning  sin  ? 

(i)  It  may  be  said  that  the  evil  affecting  mankind  has 
almost  universally  been  felt  as  the  consciousness  of  guilt ; and 
that  every  language  has  in  it  something  corresponding  to  our 
word  sin.  (2)  That  the  thoughts  of  men  have  taken  the  form 
of  inquiry  concerning  the  secret  of  its  origin  and  universality  : 
in  other  words,  concerning  what  we  call  Original  Sin. 

2.  How  is  this  illustrated  by  the  leading  theories  of  sin  ? 

(1)  In  the  systems  outside  of  revelation,  and  in  specula- 
tions independent  of  Christian  teaching,  there  have  been  two 
prominent  modes  of  thought,  one  generally  called  Pantheistic 
and  the  other  Dualistic  : both  accounting  for  the  origin  of  evil. 

(2)  And  most  of  the  controversies  within  the  Christian 
Church  have  had  to  do  with  the  relations  of  the  first  offence 
of  Adam  to  the  transgressions  of  his  posterity. 

3.  What  may  be  said  as  to  the  Oriental  ideas  of  sin? 

The  Indian  religions  are  not  strictly  Pantheistic  in  their 
conceptions  ; since  evil  is  always  regarded  as  something  in  the 
creature  that  separates  from  God  and  must  be  purged  out  in 
successive  stages  of  existence.  The  Zend  or  Persian  Dualism, 
which  asserted  two  eternal  principles,  embodied  in  Ormuzd 
(Ahura-Mazda)  and  Ahriman  (Angro-Mainyus),  taught  rigor- 
ously the  evil  of  sin  and  in  some  sense  its  final  suppression. 

4.  How  does  modern  Pantheism  view  sin  ? 

It  holds  that  evil  is  a necessary  evolution  of  the  one 
eternal  substance ; that  it  springs  from  the  limitation  of  the 
creature  as  a fleeting  manifestation  of  the  infinite  ; and  that  it 
is  not  personal  guilt,  but  a process  towards  good. 


138 


Sin. 


6.  How  has  the  Dualistic  view  appeared  in  Christianity  ? 

(1)  In  the  Gnostic  heresies  which  made  matter  the  seat 
of  evil : its  last  form  was  Manichaeism. 

(2)  In  all  those  ancient  and  modern  theories  which  havt 
regarded  man’s  sensuous  nature  as  the  seat  of  sin. 

(3)  In  certain  notions  of  the  transmission  of  evil  bias  in 
the  soul  only,  the  spotless  spirit  being  infused  by  God. 

(4)  And  in  the  widespread  opinion  that  until  death  the 
flesh  must  needs  be  a body  of  sin  ; a relic  of  Gnosticism. 

6.  What  was  the  general  testimony  of  pagan  writers? 

In  all  the  best  writings  of  antiquity  there  is  the  acknow- 
ledgment that  “ no  one  is  born  without  sin/’  and  no  one 
without  some  seed  of  good.  Moreover,  the  idea  is  often 
expressed  that  man  has  degenerated  from  a better  condition. 

7.  And  what  was  that  of  the  Judaism  of  the  Interval? 

It  preserved  the  tradition  that  “ the  first  man  was  the 
cause  of  death  to  all  his  descendants  : in  the  later  Rabbinism 
Adam  postremus  est  Messias.” 

8.  How  was  the  doctrine  of  sin  held  in  the  early  church? 

During  the  first  three  centuries  there  was  no  difference 
of  opinion  as  to  the  universality  of  sin.  The  relation  of 
original  sin  to  Adam  was  not  much  discussed  ; but  two 
currents  of  thought  as  to  inborn  depravity  began  to  set  in. 

9.  What  form  did  this  variation  assume? 

The  churches  almost  universally  held  that  the  fall  left 
some  remainder  of  good  on  which  internal  prevenient  grace 
might  work.  This  was  regarded  as  the  preservation  of  free- 
will : without  discussing  the  nature  of  will  and  its  freedom. 
The  Eastern  churches  held  rather  more  strongly  than  the 
Western  that  man  has  the  power  to  co-operate  with  grace.  The 
two  tendencies  found  their  issue  in  the  Pelagian  controversy. 

10.  Meanwhile,  what  other  discussions  tended  to  this  issue  ? 
Three  theories  of  the  origin  of  the  human  spirit  which 

divided  opinion  down  to  the  middle  ages : 


Original  Sin. 


139 


(1)  That  of  the  Preexistence  of  spirits,  their  preadamite 
fall,  and  entrance  into  earthly  life  for  purgation,  as  taught 
by  Origen  in  connection  with  universal  restoration. 

(2)  Creationism  : namely,  that  each  spirit  is  created  and 
infused  into  a human  soul,  deriving  a taint  from  the  union. 

(3)  That  of  Traducianism  : the  propagation  of  the  entire 
man,  body  and  soul  and  spirit,  according  to  the  mysterious  law 
of  God  under  which  the  first  man  was  formed. 

11.  How  did  these  affect  our  doctrine? 

(i)  The  first  would  make  every  sinner  in  the  world 
responsible  for  his  original  sin.  (2)  The  second  favoured  the 
mitigating  theories  of  depravity:  making  it  evil  rather  than 
sin.  But  it  involves,  on  the  other  hand,  a very  harsh  impu- 
tation on  the  Divine  justice.  (3)  The  third  is  the  only  one 
which  allows  the  thought  of  a human  race,  or  mankind, 
viewed  as  a federal  unity  and  corrupted  once  for  all. 

12.  What  were  the  issues  of  the  Pelagian  controversy  ? 

(1)  Pelagius  taught  that  men  are  born  in  the  state  in 
which  their  first,  father  was  created  ; but  with  the  influence  of 
bad  example  and  the  solicitations  of  the  flesh  to  fight  against; 
that  grace  is  no  other  than  the  natural  bias  to  good,  which 
the  law  and  the  example  of  Christ  work  upon  ; that  man 
can  of  himself  choose  good  and  through  discipline  reach 
perfection. 

(2)  Augustin  taught  that  all  men  “ sinned  in  Adam,’^  and 
in  him  or  with  him  lost  their  freedom  of  will  : that  is,  the  will 
became  determined  only  and  necessarily  to  evil  ; this  being 
both  guilt  and  utter  corruption. 

(3)  Semi-Pelagianism  mediated  : it  introduced  the  thought 
that  the  fall  only  weakened  the  will  and  the  power  of  men  : 
the  residue  of  good  being  sufficient  to  begin  what  grace  brings 
to  maturity.  It  regarded  this  grace,  moreover,  as  universal. 

13.  Have  those  three  types  of  doctrine  continued? 

The  first  has  perhaps  passed  away,  being  held  only  by 
those  who  like  Pelagius  deny  and  reject  the  need  of  an  atone- 
7 


140 


Sin. 


ment.  The  second  is  held  by  the  Calvinistic  churches.  The 
third,  with  modifications,  is  predominant. 

14.  What  modifications  ? 

Every  doctrine  of  original  sin  has  had  to  take  account  of 
that  something  in  the  nature  of  fallen  man  which  shows  that 
he  is  not  totally  and  absolutely  dead  in  separation  from  God. 
Semi-Pelagianism  made  the  first  attempt  ; every  succeeding 
theory  has  more  or  less  endeavoured  to  define  the  source,  value, 
and  limitations  of  that  residue  of  good.  To  trace  them  is  to 
trace  the  history  of  modern  thought  on  sin. 

15.  What  was  the  current  of  that  tendency  of  thought 

before  the  Reformation  ? 

(1)  During  the  middle  ages,  most  of  the  schoolmen  taught 
that  the  original  righteousness  of  man  was  a supernatural  gift 
enabling  him  to  keep  the  natural  desires  of  the  flesh  under 
the  control  of  the  spirit  ; that  by  sin  this  restraint  was  lost  ; 
that  this  loss  was  original  sin  as  condemnation,  and  as  the 
weakening  of  the  natural  power ; that  in  baptism  the  guilt  is 
taken  away,  the  concupiscence  remaining  but  not  reckoned  as 
sin  ; and  that  grace  is  given  before  baptism  by  which  the 
sinner  may  prepare  himself  for  justification. 

(2)  The  Council  of  Trent  put  this  into  its  final  form, 

16.  What  in  the  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  Confessions? 

They  agreed  at  first  in  presenting  an  unmitigated  dogma 
of  original  sin:  as  the  condemnation  of  the  race,  and  the  total 
extinction  of  true  spiritual  life. 

17.  What  controversy  arose  as  to  the  transmission  of  guilt  ? 

As  to  whether  it  must  be  traced  immediately  to  the  sin 
of  Adam,  or  comes  in  mediately,  on  the  supposition  that  the 
depravity  brings  or  conditions  the  guilt. 

18.  How  does  this  bear  on  our  doctrine? 

(i)  In  Predestinarianism,  which  assumes  that  there  was 


Original  Sin. 


141 


no  redemption  provided  for  part  of  the  race,  an  immediate 
imputation  is  utterly  repugnant  to  the  mercy  of  God. 

(2)  As  connected  with  the  doctrine  of  universal  redemp- 
tion, immediate  imputation  is  a necessary  foundation  for  the 
universal  original  benefit  of  the  atonement.  Immediate  and 
mediate  imputation  harmonise  well  : the  former  is  neutralised 
by  a free  gift  of  righteousness  to  mankind  ; and  the  latter  is 
the  sin  of  his  nature  charged  upon  him  who  makes  it  his  own. 

19.  What  modification  arose  in  Lutheranism? 

Synergism — the  doctrine  of  co-operation — or  semi-Pela- 
gianism,  with  one  striking  difference  : the  latter  assigns  to 
human  will  the  first  movement  which  grace  afterwards  helps  ; 
the  former  holds  that  grace  begins  what  man  must  afterwards 
co-operate  with.  This  view  was  condemned,  but  subsequently 
became  prevalent  as  a protest  against  the  extreme  view  of 
Flacius,  that  sin  has  become  of  the  very  nature  of  man. 

20.  How  did  Arminianism  still  further  lighten  the  doctrine  ? 

The  Remonstrant  Confession  carefully  defined  the  trans- 
mission of  guilt  as  actually  limited  to  the  consequences  of 
Adam’s  sin  ; it  distinguished  between  depravity  and  sin 
proper  ; and  ascribed  the  struggle  between  good  and  evil  in 
the  natural  man  to  a universal  grace  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

21.  Is  the  Methodist  doctrine  precisely  the  same  ? 

In  the  last  point  it  is.  But  in  the  two  former  it  is  more 
distinct : holding  the  transmission  of  guilt  in  full,  though  as 
counteracted  by  the  atoning  righteousness  of  the  Second 
Adam  ; and  affirming  that  the  concupiscence  of  original  sin  is 
sin  in  reality,  to  be  confessed  as  such  and  taken  away  by  grace. 

22.  What  less  qualified  developments  of  semi-Pelagianism 

are  seen  in  modern  theology  ? 

An  American  school,  mainly  connected  with  the  Oberlin 
university,  teaches  a doctrine  which  denies  original  sin 
altogether.  It  holds  that  there  is  no  sin  but  in  voluntary 
disobedience  of  a known  law  ; and  accounts  for  universal 


142 


Sin. 


depravity — if  indeed  universal — on  the  ground  that  the  first 
exercises  of  the  will  are  determined  by  sense. 

23.  What  are  the  cardinal  errors  of  this  view? 

(1)  The  undue  prominence  it  gives  to  the  human  will 
as  distinguished  from  the  personality  behind  the  will. 

(2)  The  confusion  between  natural  and  moral  ability. 

(3)  Its  Pelagian  denial  of  the  federal  connection  of  the 
race  with  its  twofold  head. 

24.  As  to  the  second  of  these,  what  is  its  error? 

It  holds  rightly  that  there  is  no  liberty  of  indifference  in 
the  human  will,  which  must  be  determined  to  good  or  evil  ; 
but  inconsistently  supposes  that  the  beginning  of  sin  is  the 
election  of  self  as  the  ultimate  choice,  and  the  beginning  of 
regeneration  its  ultimate  choice  of  universal  benevolence. 

25.  What  are  our  safeguards  in  studying  this  doctrine? 

(1)  It  will  be  well  to  remember  that  the  facts  of  human  life 
and  history  confirm  the  doctrine  both  of  a condemnation  resting 
on  the  race,  and  of  a depravity  shared  by  every  individual. 

(2)  Nothing  is  gained  by  limiting  original  sin  to  an 
inherited  bias  to  evil : the  atonement,  as  relieving  from  guilt 
and  saving  from  spiritual  impotence,  cannot  be  divided. 

(3)  It  is  not  supposed  that  sin  is  a new  entity  in  the  soul : 
the  essentials  of  human  nature  are  unimpaired. 

(4)  The  redemption  of  the  whole  race,  as  determined 
before  sin  began  and  beginning  with  it,  is  the  one  solution 

given  for  our  present  estate  of  probation.  The 
Ztch.  xiii.  X.  opened  in  Paradise  itself  for  sin  and  for 

uncleanness  may  have  two  historical  meanings  given  to  it : 
one  for  the  origin  of  the  evil,  the  other  for  the  origin  of  the 
remedy.  But  this  leads  to  the  next  Book. 


BOOK  V, 


The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


L THE  REDEEMING  PURPOSE  OF  THE  TRIUNE  GOD. 

II.  THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 

III.  THE  MEDIATORIAL  HISTORY. 

IV.  THE  ATONEMENT. 


The  Redeeming  Purpose  of  the  Triune  God.  145 


BOOK  V. 

^1)0  ■§JTe6taforiaI  of  ’^cSccmer. 

What  is  the  general  subject  of  this  Book? 

The  whole  ministry  of  the  Incarnate  Son  as  objectively 
undertaken  and  accomplished  for  the  restoration  of  mankind. 

2.  What  does  the  word  Objectively  here  mark? 

That  we  have  to  do  with  the  Saviour's  work  as  finished 
once  for  all  on  behalf  of  the  human  race  : no  reference  being 
had  to  the  benefits  of  this  work  as  applied.  But  it  is  plain 
that  the  latter  cannot  be  altogether  excluded. 

3.  Show  the  propriety  of  the  term  Ministry. 

Ministry  is  the  word  used  by  the  Lord  Himself  : T/ie  Son 
of  man  came  not  to  he  ministered  iinto^  but  to  minister^ 
and  to  give  His  life  a ransom  for  many.  It  includes 
doing  and  suffering,  both  on  earth  and  in  heaven  : which  no 
other  word  does.  But  the  Mediatorial  Work  is  a more  familiar 
phrase. 

4.  And  that  of  the  term  Mediatorial. 

It  signifies  that  the  whole  intervention  of  Christ  for  man 
is  to  be  regarded  as  that  of  a Mediator  : One,  however,  who  is 
not  a third  person  between  two  others,  but  who  is  Himself 
the  union  of  God  and  man.  There  is  a restricted  meaning  of 
mediation  which  refers  to  the  atoning  part  of  Christ’s  work  ; 
but  it  is  the  wider  meaning  that  is  signified  here. 

6.  How  is  the  subject  to  be  divided? 

The  most  systematic  treatment  of  it  is  the  best.  We  may 
pass  from  stage  to  stage,  thus  : (i)  the  eternal  purpose  in  the 
Trinity  viewed  here  as  redemptional,  with  its  gradual  accom- 
plishment until  the  fulness  of  time  ; (2)  the  Person  of  the 
Christ  who  then  appeared  ; (3)  the  estates  and  offices  of  the 
historical  Redeemer  ; (4)  the  finished  atonement. 


146  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


Chapter  I. 

'^e6eemtng  "purpose  of  l^e  ^triune  ^ob. 

1.  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  expression  ? 

It  is  intended  to  signify  that  the  whole  work  of  Christ 
was  the  accomplishment  of  a decree  that  announced  the 
purpose  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  to 
redeem  the  world  : a purpose  which  is  declared  to  have  pre- 
ceded the  sin  of  man  and  to  have  been  gradually  revealed. 

2.  But  may  we  presume  to  dwell  on  this  apart  from  its 

accomplishment  ? 

There  is  no  topic  in  theology  which  scripture  makes 
more  prominent  or  more  fundamental. 

3.  How  is  this  seen? 

In  three  ways  : the  purpose  is  described  by  various  terms  ; 
this  is  connected  with  the  three  Persons  of  the  Godhead ; and 
its  eternity  is  constantly  dwelt  on,  or  rather  its  being  before 
time  but  in  time  made  manifest. 

§ 1.  ictental  or  33ecm. 

1.  Which  of  these  words  must  be  used? 

Both  : with  a third  added  including  counsel.  According 
to  the  purpose  of  Him  who  worketh  all  things  according  to  the 
counsel  of  His  will : here  we  have  OiXrjfjia,  decree ; 
Eph.  1.  II.  deliberative  counsel  ; irpoOecnsy  purpose  before 

the  mind.  These  terms  we  may  rearrange  and  transpose  : their 
deep  combined  meaning  is  inexhaustible,  and  what  is  wanting 
in  one  is  supplied  by  the  others. 

2.  What  is  the  result  on  our  doctrine? 

That  redemption  must  be  viewed  as,  equally  with  creation, 


The  Redeeming  Purpose  of  the  Triune  God.  147 


the  pure  expression  of  a Divine  fiat : it  was  a purpose  expressed 
in  decree  and  accomplished  by  counsel. 

3.  Does  this  last  refer  to  a plan  of  redemption  ? 

No  : that  idea  is  what  it  means  to  avoid.  We  may  speak 
of  a plan  of  salvation,  that  is  of  an  ordo  salutis,  or  method  of 
saving  individuals  ; but  not  with  the  same  propriety  of  a 
scheme  or  plan  for  saving  mankind. 

4.  But  does  not  this  make  the  purpose  too  absolutely 

matter  of  will  ? 

(1)  The  will  is  that  of  love  : God  ts  love ; and  He 

so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave  His  oiily -be gotten  j jo^n  iv.  8. 
Son,  John  iii.  i6. 

(2)  The  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God 
only  executed  His  good  pleasure  for  the  salvation  of  ^cts  ii.  23. 
man.  It  has  nowhere  the  character  of  an  indepen-  Eph.  i.  9. 
dent  decree  ; but  this  word  ev^oKta  goes  on  from  beginning  to 
end  of  the  evangelical  history,  shedding  a certain  tender 
sympathy  over  the  idea. 

6.  Is  this  last  point  literally  and  universally  true  ? 

There  is  no  instance  to  the  contrary.  Every  reference  to 
the  eternal  counsel  is  connected  with  His  love  to  the  saved  as 
men  and  as  persons  : absolute  decree  there  is  none. 

6.  Does  not  all  this  resolve  the  eternal  decree  rather  into  a 
purpose  of  grace  to  the  elect  than  a purpose  of  salva- 
tion for  all? 

There  is  purpose  of  design  (tm)  and  purpose  of  result 
(wcrre).  Both  are  used  of  the  philanthropy  of  God  or  His 
love  to  the  race.  But  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  result 
in  the  congregatior\  of  brethren  gathered  round  the  Eternal 
Son  is  generally  spoken  of  as  the  design  : believers  Rom.  via. 
are  foreordained  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  29* 

His  Son, 

§ 2.  STrinitg  of  l^rtempUon. 

1.  What  means  this  expression  here  ? 

That  the  absolute  Trinity  is  revealed  to  us  as  sustaining 
special  relations  to  the  redemption  of  mankind ; relations 
7* 


148  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


which  have  their  beginning  in  the  original  purpose,  and  their 
full  exhibition  in  its  final  accomplishment. 

2.  How  their  beginning  in  the  original  purpose  ? 

There  was  in  the  most  holy  essence  of  the  Three  Persons 
a counsel  of  redemption,  this  being  rightly  understood  : in 
which  the  Father’s  will  is  a good  pleasure  accepted  by  the 
Son,  and  a purpose  to  be  accomplished  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

3.  What  means  here  the  “ rightly  understood”? 

The  scriptures  do  not  speak  directly  of  this  Triune 
counsel  in  that  sense  of  a Covenant  of  Redemption  according 
to  which  the  Son  undertook  to  save  a portion  of  the  race  and 
had  them  given  to  Him  as  His  reward  : the  Father  being  the 
originator  of  the  covenant  and  the  Holy  Spirit  its  witness  and 
administrator. 

4.  How  is  this  error  to  be  obviated? 

By  bearing  three  things  always  in  mind,  (i)  That  God 
is  one  in  will  and  purpose  and  operation : the  Father,  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  each  and  severally  represents  the  perfect 
Godhead.  (2)  That  the  object  of  the  Divine  purpose  in  re- 
demption is  the  same  man  that  was  created  by  the  Holy 
Trinity,  (3)  That  the  mysterious  interior  relations  of  the 
Triune  God,  for  ever  unfathomable  to  us,  rendered  it  possible 
that  each  Person  should  have  a distinct  function  in  the  salva- 
tion of  the  human  race. 

6.  But  is  net  theology  here  adventuring  too  highly? 

By  no  means:  since  the  entire  revelation  of  Scripture 
marks  out  these  distinctions  in  the  clearest  manner. 

6.  How  then  may  we  venture  to  express  them  ? 

That  the  Divine  Personality  of  the  Son,  being  eternally 
derived  from  the  Father  as  the  fountain  of  the  Deity,  could 
execute  the  Father’s  will  or  the  will  of  God,  in  becoming 
incarnate  ; and  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  proceeding  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  could  execute  the  will  of  Both  or  the  will 
of  the  Triune  God. 


The  Redeeming  Purpose  of  the  Triune  God.  149 


7.  Does  not  this  imply  a subordination  in  the  Two  Eternal 

Persons  ? 

Subordination  is  a thought  of  man,  and  in  human  lan- 
guage has  associations  which  make  it  a dangerous  term  for  the 
expression  of  this  sublime  mystery.  In  any  case  it  must  be 
used  consistently  with  the  eternal  unity  of  essence. 

8.  How  does  the  language  of  scripture  support  this  doctrine  ? 

One  passage  will  be  the  key  to  many  : St.  John  says  of 
God  that  He  loved  us^  U7id  sent  His  Son^  adding  that  j jo^n  iv.  lo 
the  Father  hath  sent  the  Son  to  he  the  Saviour  of  the  — ^4- 
world.  Thus  God  and  the  Father  are  interchangeable  terms ; 
as  here,  so  generally  in  the  New  Testament.  Again,  the  same 
Saviour  is  also  God  our  Saviour,^  in  the  epistle  which  Tit.  ii.  lo. 
distinguishes  God  the  Father  and  Christ  Jesus  our  xit 
Saviour speaks  of  our  great  God  a7td  Saviour  2Cor.iii.  i8 
Jesus  Chi'ist.  And  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  Spu'it  which  is  the  Lord, 

§ 3.  IBtental  |9urpose  ^ctompUatflJ  tn  Zimt, 

1.  How  is  the  redeeming  purpose  carried  up  in  scripture  to 

eternity  ? 

In  a variety  of  phrases  which  more  or  less  borrow  the 
language  of  time. 

(1)  The  gospel  is  said  to  be  the  revelation  of  the  mystery 
which  hath  been  kept  in  silence  through  tunes  eternal : Rom.  xvi. 
of  which  we  can  only  say  that  times  are,  as  it  were,  25. 

lost  in  eternity,  but  nevertheless  continue  their  name. 

(2)  The  counsel  is  said  to  have  been  bound  up  with  the 
eternal  gift  of  Christ,  purposed  in  Him,  Who  was  the  i.  10. 
Beloved  in  heaven  and  on  earth  : the  incarnate  Son  Coi.  ii.  2. 
was  the  mystery  of  God^  not  indeed  here  of  His  essence  but  of 
His  will  for  man. 

(3)  Tnis  purpose  is  presented  as  foreknowledge : the 
Redeemer  was  foreknown  indeed  before  the  founda-  ^ pg^er  i.  20. 
tion  of  the  world.  St.  Peter  here  outruns  the  other  Rev.  xiii.  8. 
disciple,  who  speaks  only  of  the  Lamb  that  hath  been  slain  from 
the  fotmdation  of  the  world.  Their  combination  is  of  great 
importance. 

2.  What  is  the  bearing  of  all  these  testimonies? 

That  the  redeeming  purpose  was  or  is  outside  of  the 


150  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


manifestation  of  man  and  his  sin,  and  enfolds  the  whole  : a 
truth  of  unspeakable  importance  to  theology  and  human  hope. 

3.  What  is  the  specific  value  of  St.  John’s  last  testimony 
above  ? 

It  shows  the  point  where  eternity  joins  time:  the  eternal 
purpose  was  actual  at  the  beginning  of  human  history;  and 
the  fulness  of  time  was  virtually  come  in  Paradise  itself. 

Gal.  iv.  4.  4.  But  what  is  the  scriptural  Fulness  of  the  Time  ? 

The  period  when  the  purpose  of  redemption  was  accom- 
plished in  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  : this  being 
viewed  (i)  as  a period  fixed  in  the  counsel  itself;  and  (2)  as 
a period  when  the  world  itself  was  ripe  for  it. 

5.  How  is  the  purpose  viewed  as  it  respects  the  former? 

As  the  end  of  a series  of  preparatory  covenant  dispensa- 
tions, given  in  progressive  disclosures  : this  was  the  Divine 
positive  preparation  by  a chosen  people. 

6.  And  how  as  it  respects  the  latter  ? 

As  the  end  of  a long  trial  of  the  endeavour  of  mankind  : 
this  was  the  negative  preparation  in  the  Gentile 
world,  which  through  its  wisdom  knew  not  God, 

7.  What  were  the  characteristics  of  the  Divine  preparation  ? 

Progressive  foreannouncement  in  prophecy  and  type, 
generally  : and,  particularly,  a series  of  covenants  or  dis- 
pensations having  express  reference  to  the  coming  Saviour. 

8.  Define  prophecy  and  type  in  their  relations. 

Prophecy  is  the  prediction  of  the  coming  of  the  Redeemer 
in  word  ; type  is  the  prediction  in  act.  The  types  and 
prophecies  of  Christ  go  on  together  through  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. They  begin  human  history  : Adam  was  the  first  Type 
Rom.  V.  14.  figure  of  Him  that  was  to  come  ; and  the  first  pro 
Gen.  iii.  15.  phecy  was  : It — her  Seed — shall  bruise  thy  head. 


The  Redeeming  Purpose  of  the  Triune  God.  151 


Isaac  was  a type,  and  the  prophecy  was  : In  thy  Seed  shall  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed.  Solomon  was  a ^ „ 

type,  and  the  prophecy  was  : I will  set  up  thy  Seed  2Sam.  vii. 
after  thee.^  . . . and  I will  establish  the  throne  of  His 
kingdom  for  ever.  This  threefold  reference  to  the  One  Seed — 
of  the  woman,  of  Abraham,  and  of  David — illustrates  a law. 

9.  What  is  the  connection  between  the  general  fore- 

announcement and  the  specific  dispensations? 

The  promises  concerning  the  coming  Christ  were  given  and 
preserved  in  successive  revelations  limited  to  a chosen  people 
at  sundry  times  or  in  divers  portions ; and  the  ^ ^ 
measures  according  to  which  these  were  meted  out  ^ 
or  dispensed  by  God  are  expressed  by  the  word  dispensations. 

10.  Does  the  scriptural  word  for  dispensation  note  this? 

Not  precisely : there  is  one  word,  o^ovo/xta,  which  is 

translated  both  by  dispensation  and  economy.  This  latter 
signifies  rather  the  ordering  of  God’s  house  or  church  as  in 
the  form  of  economies  : for  instance,  under  the  Patriarchal,  the 
Mosaic,  and  the  Christian  dispensations. 

11.  But  does  not  economy  connote  stewardship  ? 

Yes : and  in  that  sense  the  New  Testament  speaks  of  only 
two  economies  : the  Israelites  were  intrusted  with  the 
oracles  of  Godj  and  Moses  indeed  was  faithful  in  all  iii-5, 6. 
his  house ; in  the  Christian  economy  Christas  a Son  is  over 
God^s  house.,  and  the  apostles  under  Him  had  the  dis- 
pensation of  the  fulness  of  the  times  committed  to 
them. 

12.  What  is  the  relation  to  this  of  the  word  covenant  ? 

(1)  The  general  meaning  of  the  word  StaOy^Krjj  covenant, 
is  a Divine  institution  f®r  man  : it  is  not  a-vvOrjKYj  or  compact 
between  two  parties.  God  has  the  ordering  of  all,  and  there- 
fore covenant  and  dispensation  are  really  the  same. 

(2)  But  the  peculiarity  of  covenant  is  that  it  is  always 
ratified  by  sacrifice,  and  imposes  conditions  to  be  complied  with 
in  order  to  the  enjoyment  of  privileges. 

13.  How  many  covenants  are  spoken  of  ? 

One  only,  but  divided  into  three  branches. 


153  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


14.  What  was  the  one  covenant? 

The  covenant  of  grace  appointed  for  the  human  race  in 
Isa  xi*  8 * Who  is  called  the  covenant  of  the  people.^ 

sa.  X IX.  . mediator,  its  promise,  and  its  administrator  from 
the  beginning. 

15.  How  was  this  divided  into  three  branches? 

God  entered  into  covenants  with  mankind  before  the  law ; 
with  the  peculiar  people  under  the  law  ; and  with  all  the  world 
again,  after  that  narrower  covenant,  in  Christ. 

16.  What  was  its  peculiarity  before  the  law? 

(i)  That  it  was  repeatedly  renewed  with  individuals  as 
representing  the  world  : Adam,  Noah,  Abraham.  (2)  That 
the  covenant  was  ratified  with  Abraham  as  at  once  represent- 
ing the  world  and  the  chosen  race  of  his  descendants.  Thus 
as  the  last  of  the  universal  covenants  and  the  first  of  the 
limited,  it  is  introduced  with  deep  solemnity  in  the 

Gen.  XV.  18.  , i.  u ^ ^ 

great  covenant  chapter. 

17.  What  peculiarity  had  the  covenant  under  the  law? 

It  was  national  ; had  circumcision  and  the  passover  as  its 
signs  and  seals  ; engaged  the  people  to  a service  of  ceremonial 
rites  and  many  political  obligations  ; made  obedience  to  the 
law  as  outward  ordinance  its  condition  ; and  thus  kept  alive  a 
sense  of  the  condemnation  of  sin,  with  the  hope  of  a Redeemer. 

18.  Where  was  it  established  and  how? 

After  the  people  had  left  Egypt  ; and  by  the  hand  of  a 
Gal.  iii.  19.  mediator.^  Moses. 

19.  Was  there  but  one  covenant  under  the  law? 

(i)  Only  one,  called*  in  the  New  Testament  the  first  and 
Heb.  ix.  I-  the  old,  (2)  But  under  it  there  were  certain  sub- 
viii.  13.  ordinate  covenants  entered  into  with  types  of  the 
Messiah  and  foreshadowing  His  offices:  for  instance,  Aaron, 
Samuel,  and  David. 

20.  What  is  its  character  under  the  gospel  ? 

(i)  It  is  new  and  better  and  unchangeable  or  everlasting : 
Heb.viii.8,6.  this  last  Old-Tesliament  word  being  paraphrased  in 
Isa.  iv.  3.  ’ the  New. 


The  Redeeming  Purpose  of  the  Triune  God.  153 


(2)  It  is  established  or  enacted  upon  better  promises : 

promises  that  is  of  the  filial  inheritance.  Heb.  viii.  6 

(3)  Hence  it  is  elevated  into  a testament:  the  promises 

become  ours  through  the  death  of  the  Testator.  Heb.  ix.  16. 

(4)  That  death  is  the  ratification  of  all  the  covenants  in  one 
for  ever  : the  new  testament  {px  cove^iant)  in  My  blood.  i Cor.  xi.  25. 

(5)  It  is  universal  : that  is,  its  provisions  are  offered  to 

all,  and  every  man  may  set  his  seal  to  this,  that  God 

• . John  111.  33. 

ts  true. 

(6)  It  is  particular  also  : He  who  is  the  one  7nediator  (/xecrirT^s) 
between  God  and  men,  as  a ransom  for  aip  is  the  ^ Tim.  ii.  6. 
surety  (eyyro?)  as  between  God  and  believers.  But  Heb.  vh.  22. 
this  must  be  reserved. 

21.  By  what  terms  is  the  accomplishment  of  the  eternal 

purpose  described? 

(1)  As  the  economy  ox  dispejisation  of  the  fttlness 

of  times:  when  all  former  dispensations  were  perfected.  Rom.xvi.25. 

(2)  As  the  revelation  of  the  mystery  through  times  eternal 
kept  m silence : all  the  secrets  of  heaven  being  dis-  xm. 
closed.  This  sublime  view  is  common  to  our  Lord  35- 
and  St.  Paul  : the  psalmist  having  given  the  note.  n^eb^ix^ae^’ 

(3)  As  the  end  or  consummatioit  of  the  ages^  or  Gai.’iv.  ^.  ' 

the  fulness  of  the  time,  or  the  last  days.  “•  ^7* 

22.  What  is  the  emphasis  on  the  last  days? 

In  nearly  the  same  phrase  we  have  three  characteristics  of 
the  perfect  economy  described,  (i)  The  final  revelation  of  the 
Divine  will  in  His  Son.  (2)  The  finished  atonement  . 
in  His  precious  bloody  Who  was  manifested  at  the  end  i Pet.^i.^io. 
of  the  times.  (3)  The  bestowment  of  the  Spirit  upo7i  ^7* 
all  flesh. 

23.  In  what  sense  may  the  purpose  be  said  to  have  been 

accomplished  ? 

As  the  fulfilment  of  the  decree  of  objective  salvation  : 
according  to  this  last  threefold  answer. 

§ 4.  J^istorital. 

1.  What  controversies  have  arisen  on  this  general  subject? 

Many  on  subordinate  points  ; but  one  preeminently  that 
is  limited  to  it : that  concerning  the  predestinating  decrees. 


154  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


2.  Is  tlie  germ  of  this  controversy  in  scripture  ? 

Only  in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  does  it  appear  as  matter 
of  discussion  ; but  neither  there  nor  anywhere  is  the  election 
or  hardening  carried  up  to  eternity.  The  ways  of  God  with 
Jew  or  Gentile  in  time  are  the  subject  ; and  we  are 
om.  X1.33.  Qff  fi-om  controversy  as  to  His  ways  past 

tracing  out, 

3.  What  course  has  it  taken  in  Christian  times? 

The  initiative  was  taken  by  Augustine,  who  introduced 
into  the  patristic  church  the  predestination  of  individuals  to 
special,  irresistible  grace.  In  the  ninth  century,  Gottschalk 
first  formulated  the  predestination  to  death  ; but  this  gemina 
PR^DESTiNATio  was  ambiguous  until  the  eve  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, the  absolute  predestination  to  sin  and  the  limitation  of  the 
atonement  never  having  been  issued  as  dogmas.  The  mediaeval 
theology  and  the  council  of  Trent  favoured  universal  redemp- 
tion. So  did  the  Lutheran  formularies.  But  Calvin  carried 
out  to  its  issue  what  Augustine  began  : basing  the  limitation 
of  grace  solely  on  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God. 

4.  Has  this  stern  type  been  maintained? 

Only  by  few  in  the  highest  form  of  Supralapsarianism  : 
that  is,  of  a decree  in  eternity  including  a necessary  fall. 

6.  What  reactions  have  set  in  ? 

Among  Calvinists  themselves  some  have  preferred  to 
make  the  determining  decree  date  this  side  the  fall  : Infra- 
lapsarians.  Under  this  latter  head  may  be  classed  those 
modifications  which  in  France  and  England  have  limited  the 
decree  to  the  elect  and  made  it  hypothetical.  In  another 
sense,  the  advocates  of  universal  redemption  are  Infralap- 
sarians,  since  all  admit  that,  the  fall  and  redemption  being 
presupposed,  there  is  a predestination  of  the  saints  to  life  and 
of  all  who  are  foreseen  as  reprobate  to  death. 

6.  What  is  the  issue  of  this  controversy  ? 

We  are  not  permitted  to  speak  or  think  of  eternal 
decrees : to  us  the  Divine  purposes  are  expressed  in  terms  of 
time  and  are  conditional. 


The  Person  of  Christ. 


155 


Chapter  II. 

person  of 

§ 1.  ^person  antJ  JpersonaU'tj. 

1.  What  is  the  theological  meaning  of  this  term  ? 

It  expresses  the  truth  that  in  the  undivided  and  indi- 
visible unity  of  two  natures  our  Lord  is  one  person  for  even 

2.  What  does  this  definition  guard  against? 

(i)  The  error  of  ascribing  to  Christ  two  personalities  : as 
if  He  was  the  personal  Son  of  God  joined  to  a personal  son  of 
man.  (2)  Also  the  error  of  regarding  the  Divine  and  human 
natures  as  so  blended  that  the  Redeemer  is  one  person  in  one 
composite  nature. 

3.  Are  these  distinctions  logically  conceivable? 

Most  certainly  they  are,  though  they  pass  understanding. 
Their  value  is  not  their  explanation  of  the  mystery  ; but  their 
protection  of  the  doctrine. 

4.  Is  their  importance  so  fundamental? 

This  truth  lies  at  the  basis  of  Christianity  as  it  reveals  a 
Mediator  and  mediation.  One  represents  man  to  God  and 
God  to  man  Who  is  as  a person  distinct  from  both  : His 
person  is  not  His  Divinity  alone,  nor  is  it  His  humanity  alone, 
but  the  Being  who  calls  these  two  natures  alike  His  own. 

5.  But  would  not  two  persons,  Divine  and  human,  united 

answer  every  purpose  of  mediation  ? 

A mediator  must  be  one  personal  agent. 

6.  Give  the  more  precise  theological  statement  of  this. 

The  Person  of  Christ  is  both  Divine  and  human.  As 


156  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


Divine  He  represents  God  to  man  ; as  human  He  represents 
mankind  to  God.  The  personality,  or  supreme  I of  the 
person,  is  Divine  ; and  gives  the  virtue  of  Divinity  to  all  that 
belongs  to  His  mediation  and  work. 

7.  Does  not  this  introduce  a strange  distinction  between 

person  and  personality  ? 

It  simply  declares  that  the  Divine  person  took  human 
nature  ; and  continued  still  to  be  the  supreme  agent  after  the 
incarnation  as  He  was  before. 

8.  Has  not  the  human  nature  a personality  of  its  own  ? 

Not  in  this  case.  The  Lord^s  human  nature  possessed  a 
will,  but  will  as  such  is  not  essential  personality.  Personality 
means  a self-conscious  agent ; and  that  in  Christ  was  always 
the  Son  of  God. 

9.  But  can  we  speak  of  impersonal  human  nature? 

We  need  not  use  the  phrase.  But  what  the  phrase 
signifies  is  the  glory  of  Christianity,  and  the  very  secret  of  the 
atonement.  Our  Lord  represented  not  a man  but  men  ; He 
took  our  nature,  or  conditions  of  life,  before  personality 
belonged  to  it  ; and  He  enriched  His  human  estate  with  a 
Divine  personality  which  perfectly  controlled  the  human  will. 

10.  How  then  may  we  trace  the  scriptural  teaching  ? 

B}^  showing  that  there  is  one  personality  ; always  that  of 
the  Eternal  Son  ; nevertheless,  always  as  animating  a perfect 
human  nature. 


§ 2.  anb  J^ersonalitp. 

1.  How  is  the  unity  of  our  Lord’s  person  exhibited  ? 

In  two  ways  : (i)  Sometimes  that  one  and  the  same 
person  is  described  formally  as  possessing  two  natures.  (2) 
There  is  always  one  personal  subject,  or  personality,  to  Whom 
belong  interchangeably  both  Divine  and  human  attributes. 

2.  Give  instances  of  the  former. 

In  sundry  passages  our  Lord^s  human  nature  is  called  His 


The  Person  of  Christ, 


157 


flesh,  and  His  Divine  nature  is  expressly  set  over  against  it. 
He  was  of  the  seed  of  David  accordmg  to  the  flesh,,  Rom.  i.  3, 4. 
Who  was  declared  to  he  the  Son  of  God  with  power,,  5- 

according  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness.  Again  : Of  whom  is  Christ 
as  co7icej'7iing  the  flesh,,  Who  is  over  all,,  God  blessed  for  ever. 
The  ONLY  antithesis  of  flesh  and  spirit  in  Christ  is  that  of 
His  two  natures.  The  Word  became  flesh  and  dwelt 
among  us,,  or  is  come  m the  fleshy  or  in  the  likeness  of  i John  iv.  2. 
sinful  flesh.  ^ 


Rom.  viii.  3. 


3.  Is  this  antithesis  really  without  exception? 

It  is  hard  to  dispute  it.  One  passage  might  seem  to 
speak  of  the  Lord^s  flesh  as  the  flesh  of  mere  infirmity  : Who 
in  the  days  of  His  flesh  havmg  offered  up  ..  . ! But,  Heb.  v.  7, 8. 
as  earlier  in  the  epistle  the  incarnation  was  seen  to 
be  His  partaking  with  the  sharers  m fle!^h  aiid  blood,  so  here 
Though  He  was  a So7i  follows.  The  Flesh  is  the  one  formula 
for  His  human  nature  ; and  the  Divine  corresponds  in  a variety 
of  terms  : the  Word,  the  Son,  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  ... 
or  the  Spirit,  or  the  Eternal  Spirit,  God  over  all,  are  i Pet.’hi.  19! 
set  over  against  it. 

4.  Can  “Spirit  of  holiness”  and  “God  over  all”  be  applied 

to  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ  ? 

Spirit  is  the  common  name  of  God,  and  belongs  to  each 
of  the  Three  Persons.  And  our  Lord  is  mediatorially  the  God 
Who  is  OVER  ALL.  These  and  other  such  passages  are  difficult 
on  any  scheme  of  interpretation  ; but  the  theory  of  antithesis 
between  the  two  natures  offers  them  the  simplest  solution. 


6.  Give  instances  of  the  second  law  mentioned  above. 

(r)  The  one  eternal  I or  Me  reigns  throughout  the 
Gospels  ; a Subject  with  attributes  taken  from  heaven  and 
earth,  eternity  and  time,  Divinity  and  humanity.  Hast  thou 
seen  Abraham?  Before  Abraham  was,  1 am!  jo^nviii  57 
Glorify  Jhoti  Me  with  Thme  ow7i  self  with  the  glory  ^ 58. 
which  I had  with  Thee  before  the  world  was. 

(2)  This  one  subject,  the  Person  of  Christ,  has  many 
names  ; and  is  referred  to  in  many  ways  throughout  the  New 
Testament : God,  the  Son,  the  Son  of  man  Jesus,  Jesus  Christ, 


158  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


the  Lord,  the  Saviour,  and  some  others.  But  the  predicates 
are  taken  from  both  natures,  or  from  either  : for  instance,  The 
John  iii  13  ^ mafi^  Which  is  in  heaven  ; The  church  of  God^ 

Acts  XX.  28*  which  He  purchased  with  His  own  blood  ; They  would 
not  have  crucified  the  Lord  of  glory. 


I Cor.  ii.  8. 


0.  State  more  particularly  the  force  of  these  testimonies. 

They  lead  up  by  induction  to  the  great  law  that  to  One 
Person  belong  two  natures  equally,  indissolubly,  and  without 
confusion.  This  is  the  key  of  the  New-Testament  phraseology. 


7.  What  theological  term  expresses  this  combination  ? 

The  Hypostatic  Union. 

8.  What  is  meant  by  this  ? 

The  union  refers  to  the  two  natures  : Hypostasis  here 
means  person  ; and  signifies  that  the  union  is  not  that  of 
fusion,  but  results  in  a personal  unity. 

9.  What  four  terms  protect  this  entire  doctrine  ? 

Christ  is  truly  God,  perfectly  man,  indissolubly  one 
person,  unconfusedly  two  natures.  The  last  two  are  expressed 
by  the  hypostatic  union  ; the  first  two  have  still  to  be  more 
particularly  seen. 


§ 3.  33itme  jpei'jsonaliti)  of  ^Eternal  Son. 

1.  What  is  the  general  meaning  of  this  section  ? 

That  the  Second  Person  of  the  Godhead,  the  Eternal  Son, 
continues  His  personality  sole  and  supreme  in  all  the  facts 
and  issues  of  the  incarnation. 

2.  Then  the  term  person  as  applied  to  the  Son  in  the  God- 

head has  a different  meaning  from  that  which  it  bears 
in  the  incarnate  Christ  ? 

Yes : it  may  be  well  to  remember  that  in  the  Godhead 
there  are  three  Persons  in  one  nature ; while  in  the  Christ 
there  is  one  Person  in  two  natures. 


The  Person  of  Christ. 


I5Q 


3.  But  is  the  Redeemer’s  Divinity  always  that  of  the 

Eternal  Son? 

Not  precisely  always  : He  is  the  Word^  and  He  is  God^  and 
He  is  the  Lord ^ in  His  incarnation.  But  generally 
and  as  the  rule  He  is  the  Son.  jal  iti.* 

4.  How  and  by  what  ways  is  the  term  Son  qualified  ? 

In  four  ways  : He  is  the  Only-begotten  Son,  the  Son  of 
God,  the  Son  absolutely,  and  the  Son  of  man. 

5.  Are  these  all  connected  with  the  incarnation  ? 

All  of  them,  directly  or  indirectly  ; but  the  first  three 
expressly  assert  or  imply  an  eternal  sonship  before  and  behind 
the  incarnation. 

6.  What  is  the  precise  relation  of  the  eternal  sonship  to 

the  incarnation? 

It  may  be  looked  at  under  two  aspects  : 

(1)  As  to  the  Holy  Trinity  : only  the  Son,  in  the  un- 
fathomable mystery  of  the  Godhead,  could  be  and  was  sent  ; 
not  the  Father  nor  the  Holy  Ghost. 

(2)  This  shows,  as  to  man  himself,  that  between  the  Son, 
the  eternal  Image  of  God,  and  man,  the  human  image  of  that 
Image,  there  is  some  mysterious  and  blessed  bond. 

7.  Does  the  scripture  encourage  speculation  on  such  a 

subject? 

It  perpetually  suggests  thoughts  like  these : especially,  as 
we  shall  hereafter  see,  when  the  humiliation  of  the  Son  is  in 
question  and  the  dignity  of  our  saved  race. 


§ 4.  ^Perfect  planJiooli. 

1.  What  does  this  involve  as  to  the  Person  of  Christ  ? 

That  the  Divine  personality  of  the  Eternal  Son  appeared  in 
a perfect  human  nature  : in  it  living  and  acting  and 
suffering  as  Immanuel^  which  is^  being  interpretedy 
God  with  us. 


i6o  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


2.  What  is  the  force  of  the  adjective  Perfect? 

Twofold  : (i)  the  manhood  He  assumed  was,  without 
diminution,  body,  soul,  and  spirit  ; (2)  it  was  without 
addition : the  Divine  Logos  ruled  in  that  nature,  but  as 
distinct  and  not  blended  with  it. 

3.  Why  is  the  emphasis  on  His  assuming  human  nature  ? 

To  mark  that  He  did  not  join  Himself  to  a man,  con- 
ceived with  the  germ  of  an  independent  personal  existence ; 
but  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God  living,  amidst  human  con- 
ditions, in  that  human  nature  which  was  the  ideal  in  the  mind 
of  the  Creator  when  man  was  first  created. 

4.  Is  not  this  notion  of  a human  nature  apart  from  a 

distinct  human  personality  an  unreality  ? 

In  human  philosophy  it  may  be  ; but  not  in  the  Divine 
philosophy  of  scripture,  which  assumes  this  without  explaining 
it.  Our  Lord  was  the  Son  incarnate ; not  a man  united  to 
God  in  any  manner  however  preeminent. 

6.  May  we  not  include  in  the  perfection  of  this  nature  its 
sinlessness  ? 

Not  precisely  so.  The  human  nature  is  perfect  only  in 
its  constituents:  a spirit  acting  through  the  body  as  a soul. 
From  sin  our  Lord^s  manhood  was  specially  shielded. 

6.  In  what  way  specially  shielded  ? 

His  human  nature  was  conceived  of  the  virgin  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  thus  saved  from  the  taint  of  original  sin  as 
well  as  its  condemnation.  He  could  not  sin  after  that  because 
He  was  the  Son  of  God.  In  other  words.  He  was  sinless 
through  His  Divine  conception  ; and  He  was  impeccable,  or 
for  ever  incapable  of  sin,  because  His  only  personality  was 
never  other  than  that  of  the  Eternal  Son. 

7.  How  does  the  New  Testament  explain  and  protect  this  ? 

(i)  By  the  terms  of  incarnation.  Our  Lord  is  Man^ 
iTim.  ii.  5.  Chvist  Jesus  j The  Word  became  flesh  ; partook 

lieb!  ii.  14.  of  the  same  flesh  and  blood  which  the  children  shared  ; 


The  Person  of  Christ. 


i6i 


but  was  sent  only  m the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  ; the  final 
testimony  being  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  Rom.  viii.  3. 
flesh.  I J ohn  iv.  2. 

(2)  By  representing  the  Son  of  God  as  having  and 
developing  and  using  every  element  of  human  nature 
throughout  His  career.  Before  the  resurrection  Jesus  in^ 
creased  in  wisdom^  and  He  perceived  hi  His  spirit^  ..  ^ 
cried  My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowfuf  and  Not  as  I Markii.  8^* 
wilf  but  as  Thou  wilt.  After  the  resurrection  He  said, 

A spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones^  as  ye  see  Me  have^  Luke  xxiv. 
thus  asserting  the  verity  of  the  lower  part  of  His 
humanity,  which  then  most  needed  assertion  and  evidence. 

§ 5.  JliistoruaU 

1.  What  have  been  the  bearings  of  controversy  on  this 

subject? 

Vital  differences  have  existed  as  to  the  Two  Natures 
respectively,  and  then  as  to  the  nature  of  their  Union. 

2.  Excluding  errors  as  to  the  Divinity  of  Christ  ? 

Those  who  hold  this  error  have  no  doctrine  of  the  Person 
of  the  Incarnate  Redeemer,  as  we  understand  it. 

3.  Which  were  the  earliest  heresies  as  to  the  verity  of  both 

natures  at  once? 

Those  of  the  Gnostics,  who  regarded  the  Divinity  as  an 
emanation  or  aeon,  and  the  humanity  as  only  a seeming 
appearance  in  the  flesh  : hence  Docetae  (from  Sok^lvj  to  seem). 

4.  Which  heresies  dishonoured  the  two  natures  respectively  ? 

(1)  The  Apollinarians  assailed  the  human  nature  by 
denying  that  the  Lord  had  a human  spirit,  making  His 
Divinity  take  its  place  or  render  it  superfluous. 

(2)  The  Arians  denied  the  eternal  consubstantiality  of  the 
Son  and  the  Father : they  regarded  the  Son  as  God  generated 
of  His  essence  by  the  Divine  will  before  the  world  was.  The 
semi-Arians  endeavoured  to  explain  and  reconcile  by  changing 
ojxoovcnov^  of  the  SAME  substance,  into  o^oiovcnov^  of  like  sub- 
stance. But  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  inferior  Divinity. 


1 62  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


6.  What  were  the  leading  errors  as  to  the  union  of  the 
Two  Natures  ? 

Two;  Nestorianism  and  Eutychianism.  Nestorius  and 
Eutyches  gave  these  their  names ; but  they  represented  two 
lines  of  error  which  have  never  been  altogether  absent. 

6.  Where  lies  the  theological  danger  of  Nestorianism  ? 

It  represented  Christ  as  having  two  persons  in  two 
natures : dividing  the  Person.  And  its  danger  is  that  of 
making  the  One  Saviour  two  separate  agents,  thus  taking 
away  from  the  work  of  the  Redeemer  its  supreme  Divinity. 

7.  And  what  is  the  peril  of  Eutychianism  ? 

It  represented  Christ  as  having  one  person  in  one 
nature  : confounding  the  Natures.  And  its  danger  is  that  of  re- 
moving from  redemption  the  pure  humanity  of  the  Redeemer, 
and  giving  Him  a nature  neither  perfect  God  nor  perfect  man. 

8.  When  were  these  errors  severally  condemned? 

(1)  At  the  Council  of  Nicaea  (a.d.  325),  the  Divinity  of 
the  Son,  consubstantial  with  the  Father,  was  established. 

(2)  At  that  of  Constantinople  (a.d.  381)  the  reality  of  the 
human  spirit  of  Christ  was  asserted  : as  also  the  Divinity  of 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

(3)  At  that  of  Ephesus  (a.d.  431)  the  unity  of  our  Lord’s 
Person  was  vindicated. 

(4)  And  at  that  of  Chalcedon  (a.d.  451)  the  verity  of  His 
two  natures  : a general  formulary  of  the  true  doctrine  being 
issued,  which  is  still  the  last  word  on  the  subject. 

9.  What  quaternion  of  terms  protect  the  truth  ? 

Our  Lord  was  affirmed  to  be  truly  God  in  the  first ; 
PERFECTLY  Man  in  the  second  ; undividedly  one  Person  in 
the  third  ; and  unconfusedly  Two  Natures  in  the  fourth. 

10.  Were  there  not  other  errors  on  this  subject? 

Not  strictly  as  to  the  Person  of  Christ.  Later  errors  on 
the  relation  of  the  union  of  the  two  natures  to  our  Loid’s 
humiliation  will  appear  in  due  course. 


The  Historical  Christ. 


163 


Chapter  III. 

(historical  @^risf,  or  tlye  "process  of  t^c 
■gtle^iatorial  ^Sorfe. 

1.  What  range  of  subjects  do  we  now  enter  on  ? 

The  ministry  of  our  Lord  as  historically  accomplished  : 
including  His  incarnation  as  the  basis  of  all ; His  two  estates 
as  humbled  and  exalted  ; the  relations  of  His  three  offices. 

2.  Is  this  what  is  meant  by  ‘‘  the  Life  of  Jesus  ? ” 

The  life  of  our  Lord,  as  a manifestation  of  the  Son  of  God, 
cannot  be  written  ; or  only  as  an  exposition  of  the  Gospels. 

I. 


gttcarnafiott  of  §on  of  ^jo6. 


1. 


Phil.  ii.  6,  7. 


Why  is  the  incarnation  here  alone  and  as  apart? 

Because  it  is  the  basis  of  our  Lord’s  estates  and  offices  : 
preceding  and  underlying  and  outlasting  them  all. 

2.  Is  not  the  incarnation,  or  the  descent  to  our  nature,  the 

beginning  of  His  humbled  estate? 

Strictly  it  is  not  : He  e^nptied  Himself^  as  4:he  pre- 
temporal Son,  by  a previous  conlescension,  of  the 
J^orm  of  God, 

3.  Does  then  the  incarnation  in  any  intelligible  sense  pre- 

cede the  manifestation  in  the  flesh? 

To  this  there  are  two  answers.  (i)  The  purpose  was 
virtually  accomplished  ; and  in  this  sense  we  speak  of  the 
incarnation  as  a Divine  reality  before  time  was  : the  last  Adam 
is  as  real  in  paradise  as  the  first.  (2)  Though  we  have  no 
word  in  scripture  to  express  the  idea,  we  must  regard  the 
assumption  of  human  nature  as  a theological  conception 
distinct  from  the  actual  birth  of  the  virgin. 

8 


164  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


4.  How  does  scriptural  phraseology  comport  with  this? 


(i)  Our  Lord  never  speaks  but  of  His  coming  from  heaven: 
Tohnviii  2^  lam  from  ahove,  I came  forth  and  am  come  from 
42.  God, 


John  i.  14. 

I John  iv.  2. 
I Tim.  ii.  5. 


(2)  His  apostles  say:  The  Word  became  flesh ; 
He  is  come  in  the  flesh  : He  is  Jesus  Christy  Himself 
Man. 


(3)  They  make  the  actual  incarnation  a necessary  condi- 
John  i.  14.  tion  of  the  atonement : the  Redeemer  became  or  was 
2 Cor.  V.  21.  f^ade  flesh  that  He  might  be  made  to  be  sin  for  us. 

(4)  Therefore  the  incarnation  was  virtually  but  not 
actually  the  salvation  of  men. 


II. 

"§l)c  ®n)o  §statcs. 

1.  What  is  signified  by  this  phrase  ? 

The  ministry  of  our  Lord,  first  as  humbled  on  earth  and 
then  as  exalted  in  heaven. 

2.  Can  the  limits  separating  these  be  precisely  defined? 

If  we  understand  the  term  humiliation  literally  they  can. 
Formally,  His  conception  began  and  His  ascension  ended  the 
- , ...  humbled  estate.  Really  the  humiliation  ended  with 

Johnxill.31;  r TT*  1 1 1*1  TT*  • 1 

xvii.  I.  the  moment  of  His  death,  which  was  His  victory  and 
Col.  11. 15.  glorification. 

3.  Is  the  history  of  the  Mediator  confined  within  these 

limits  ? 

As  He  is  the  Mediator  it  is.  But  in  a wider  sense  His 
history  runs  through  five  stages  : His  eternal  preexistence  as 
the  Son ; His  unrevealed  headship  of  the  human  race  ; His 
temporal  manifestation  ; His  mediatorial  reign  in  glory  ; His 
resignation  of  the  kingdom  at  the  end. 

I §state  of  ^mniUation. 

1.  Of  Whose  humiliation  do  we  speak? 

Of  the  Christ’s  in  His  incarnate  Person,  God  and  man : 
not  of  His  Divinity  alone,  nor  of  His  manhood  alone. 


The  Historical  Christ. 


165 


2.  What  is  the  hearing  of  this  distinction  ? 

His  union  with  our  nature  involved  an  obscuration  or 
veiling  of  His  Divinity  ; and  the  ministry  He  undertook 
involved  the  deep  humiliation  of  His  human  nature. 

3.  May  we  make  a difference  between  the  humiliation  of 

His  Person  and  that  of  His  work  ? 

Such  a distinction  may  be  made  ; but  it  is  the  glory  of 
our  redemption  that  the  two  are  really  one,  and  quality 
each  the  other.  The  God  and  the  Man  are  never  ^ , .. 

^ j Col.  11,  9. 

separated. 

4.  How  are  they  one  ? 

Throughout  the  ministry  of  redemption  the  Incarnate 
Son  performs  in  successive  stages  one  great  act  of  vicarious 
OBEDIENCE.  That  is  the  one  word  which  expresses  His  humi- 
liation : He  humbled  Hhnself  after  being  made  in  .. 
the  likeness  of  man.  The  Divine  Agent  was  in  all  ^ ‘ 
the  work. 

6.  How  do  they  qualify  each  other  ? 

The  weakness  of  His  suffering  flesh,  being  His  own,  made 
the  humiliation  of  the  Divine  Person  real  ; but  the  unchange- 
ableness of  His  Divine  nature  protected  His  Person  from  the 
possibility  of  any  subjection  to  sin  : His  obedience  was  humi- 
liation, only  as  He  was  the  Representative  of  sinners. 

6.  What  principle  must  guide  us  here? 

While  we  distinguish  between  the  Person  and  the  work  of 
the  Redeemer,  we  must  bear  in  mind  in  every  statement  that 
He  is  the  Representative,  though  only  the  Representative,  of  the 
sinning  race.  His  humanity  was  the  sphere  of  His  submission. 

§ 1.  ^etaonal  J^umfliation  Jbistoncallg  'Fieb3eU. 

1.  Where  must  we  place  the  beginning  of  this  ? 

In  the  sacred  history  of  the  Conception  : the  Eternal 
Son  humbled  Himself  and  became  fiesh  in  the  womb  John  i.  14. 
of  the  virgin,  being  conceived  by  the  direct  operation  Heb.  ii.  14. 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  took  or  received  the  human  nature. 


1 66  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


2.  How  do  we  continue  it? 

In  the  pure  development  of  the  human  nature  of  our 
Lord  : physical,  moral,  intellectual,  spiritual.  This  sinless 
Matt  iv  I development  was  that  of  the  Incarnate  Son.  Its 
^ humiliation  was  His  being,  though  the  Son,  led  of 

the  Spirit  as  Man. 

3.  Did  not  His  circumcision  and  baptism  and  temptation 

imply  that  His  humiliation  was  a fellowship  with  our 
sinful  nature? 

No.  All  were  undergone  by  our  Lord  as  the  sinless  Repre- 
sentative of  sinners : circumcision  as  He  became  under  the 
Gal  iv  4 Jewish  law  ; baptism  as  the  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh 
John  Lag.  away  the  sin  of  the  world  ; and  His  temptation  to 
jas.  1. 13.  prove  that  as  God  He  could  not  be  tempted  of  evil 
as  men  are  enticed. 

4.  Does  not  such  a view  make  the  temptation  an  unreality  ? 

The  Lord’s  temptation  was  a real  test  applied,  as  real  as 
that  applied  to  Adam.  But  it  was  proved  that  the  Son  of 
God  was  the  strength  of  His  human  nature.  During  the 
forty  days  He  was  tried  as  no  man  ever  was  tried  by 
temptations  proper  to  the  Christ.  Afterwards  three  kinds 
1 Cor  X I temptation  common  to  man  assailed  Him,  and  His 
1 or.  X.  13.  j)iyin0.]^riman  answers  both  explain  the  temptations 
and  teach  us  how  to  resist  them.  These  answers  are  the  key 
to  the  whole. 

5.  What  marks  of  humiliation  are  seen  in  the  successive 

stages  of  the  Lord’s  life  ? 

He  encountered  the  lot  of  a righteous  man  in  an  ungodly 
world.  These  sufferings  were  His  glory  : that  He  endured 
them  as  the  Representative  of  sinners  who  should  humble 
themselves  under  the  mighty  hand  of  God  was  His  humiliation. 

6.  In  what  sense  was  death  the  end  of  His  humiliation  ? 

(1)  Generally,  all  the  redeeming  life  was  suffering  unto 
death.  He  was  obedient  even  unto  death.  Hence,  though 
Phii.  ii,  8.  all  was  passion,  the  end  we  call  the  Passion  pre- 
Acts  i.  3.  eminently. 

(2)  The  kind  of  death  was  the  most  shameful  by  which 
Phil.  ii.  8.  man  can  leave  the  world : the  death  of  the  cross. 


The  Historical  Christ. 


167 


This  connected  His  death  with  the  world  ; as  the  altar  with 
Judaism.  It  is  not  an  altar,  but  a cross.  The  sacrifice  on  the 
altar  makes  emphatic  the  good  pleasure  of  God  : the  cross 
makes  emphatic  the  shame  of  sin  which  He  endured  Heb.xiii.12, 
when  He  went  without  the  gate^  thus  hearing  His  ^3. 
reproach  and  leaving  the  temple  behind.  His  people  go  forth 
unto  Him^  bearing  it  also. 

§ 2.  iXebeemmg 

1.  How  is  the  humble  estate  here  viewed? 

As  obedience  ; perfect,  unbroken,  to  the  end. 

2.  Can  there  be  humiliation  in  such  obedience? 

Yes,  as  rendered  by  the  Son  of  God,  the  Representative  of 
sinners.  Otherwise, there  is  no  humiliation  in  obedience  as  such. 

3.  How  is  this  set  forth  in  the  scriptures? 

In  three  cardinal  and  most  important  passages. 

(1)  The  all-holy,  incarnate  Jesus,  though  He  was  a Son^ 
yet  learned  obedience  : not  learned  to  obey,  but  ex- 
perienced or  proved  all  that  the  Messianic  work 
imposed  on  Him. 

(2)  All  His  obedience  was  suffering  as  the  desert  of  sin  ; 
but  all  His  suffering  was  obedience.  Thus  it  was  a cancelling 
of  human  sin  : the  opposite  of  the  great  transgression.  As 
through  the  one  man^s  disobedience  the  many  were 

made  sinners,  even  so  through  the  obedience  of  the  One 

shall  the  many  be  made  righteous.  He  at  once  suffered  for  sin 

and  kept  the  law. 

(3)  Becoming  obedient  even  unto  death.  There  it  ended  • 
but  not  before.  Death  finished  the  lesson  which  the 
Incarnate  had  to  learn  in  order  to  negative  Adam’s 
disobedience. 

4.  Does  then  the  word  obedience  cover  the  whole  meaning 

of  the  Saviour’s  work? 

It  does  so,  if  obedience  is  made  to  include  the  whole  will 
of  God  for  our  salvation  as  laid  upon  our  Representative. 

II.  §state  of  ^ieallalion. 

1.  What  are  the  stages  and  processes  of  this? 

Beginning  with  the  descent  into  Hades,  the  resurrection, 


1 68  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


the  ascension  and  session,  it  continues  in  the  heavenly 
dominion,  and  is  perfected  at  the  end  of  the  mediatorship. 

2.  What  is  the  relation  between  the  humbled  and  the 

exalted  estates? 

As  the  humiliation  was  viewed  in  respect  of  the  Person 
and  the  work  of  Christ,  so  must  the  exaltation  be  at  all  points, 

3.  How  does  this  bear  on  the  descent  ? 

This  was  the  first  glorification  of  the  Redeemer’s  Person  : 
iTim  iii  manifested  in  the  flesh  was,  as  God, 

i6.  ’ * justified  in  the  Spirit,  And  it  was  the  first  triumph 
Rom.  XIV.  9.  pj-g  redeeming  work  : He  proved  Himself  Lord  of 
the  dead  as  the  result  of  His  death. 

4.  And  how  on  the  resurrection? 

(i)  In  it  He  was  declared  to  he  the  Son  of  God  with 
^ . power  : and  (2)  His  atoning  work  was  declared  to  be 

Acts.xiij.34.  accepted  and  valid  for  us:  I will  give  you  the  sure 
Rom.  IV.  25.  fjiercies  of  David,  He  was  raised for  our justification. 

6.  What  is  the  preeminence  of  the  resurrection? 

(1)  That  it  sums  up  in  itself  the  whole  of  the  Lord’s 

glorification  : as  the  atoning  death  is  one  pillar  of  the 
Acts.  11. 32.  resurrection  is  the  other. 

(2)  It  is  the  Divine  demonstration  of  the  truth  of  the 
1C0r.xv.17.  Christian  revelation.  'Wiihout  it  your  faith  is  vain  ^ 

(3)  Hence  its  evidences  are  absolute.  The  only  infallible 
Acts  i.  3.  proofs  given  in  scripture  are  related  to  this.  And 
Acts  V.  32.  to  sincere  examination  they  are  infallible  through 
the  Holy  Ghost. 

6.  What  is  the  relation  of  the  ascension  and  session? 

(1)  The  ascension  was  the  sequel  of  the  resurrection,  as 
it  regards  the  Lord's  Person  ; and  therefore  the  close  of  His 
earthly  manifestation. 

(2)  The  session  was  the  ascension,  viewed  rather  with 

, , . relation  to  heaven  than  to  earth.  The  Lord  ascended 

51.  ‘ from  earth,  being  parted  from  His  disciples,  and  sate 

Heb.  1. 3.  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high 


The  Historical  Christ. 


169 


7.  What  is  His  dignity  in  heaven  ? 

(1)  That  all  principalities  and  powers  are  put  in  sub- 

jection  under  His  feet,  Eph.  i.  22. 

(2)  That  He  is  accomplishing  all  the  designs  of  the  Holy 

Trinity  : Head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  Eph.  i.  22. 

8.  How  are  we  to  understand  its  final  surrender? 

As  to  the  Redeemer’s  work  this  will  belong  to  His  exalta- 
tion : since  it  will  declare  every  other  authority  sub- 
jected unto  Him.  As  to  His  Person,  He  will  as  ^ 28- 

Mediator  cease  to  be  between  the  Trinity  and  the  creature  : 
that  God  may  be  all  in  all, 

III. 

"§l)vce  Offices:  as  '^xoplyctj 

priest  mi5  r^xinq. 

1,  In  what  sense  is  the  term  Ofiices  appropriate  ? 

As  redemption  is  the  ministry  of  the  Incarnate  Son, 
called  in  His  humiliation  the  Servant  of  God,  this  isa.  lii.  13. 
term  has  its  fitness.  But  scripture  never  uses  any-  iii.  26. 
thing  equivalent  to  it ; and  we  should  apply  the  expression 
with  great  care. 

2,  What  relation  is  there  between  the  offices  and  the  Christ  ? 

Christ  from  the  Greek  and  Messiah  from  the  Hebrew 
signify  anointed.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  prophets,  priests, 
and  kings  who  typified  the  future  Redeemer  were  consecrated 
to  the  service  of  God,  and  fitted  for  it  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
using  the  emblem  of  an  effusion  of  holy  anointing  ex.  xxx.  22 
oil.  No  longer  using  the  emblem  that  Spirit  de-  ““33- 
scended  upon  Jesus,  consecrated  His  Person  and  filled  His 
human  spirit  with  the  preparation  for  His  work  of  redemption. 
He  thus  became  the  Anointed  One  preeminently, 

THE  Lord’s  Christ.  Luke  n.  26. 

3,  What  is  the  history  of  this  name  in  scripture  ? 

It  was  used  thrice  in  the  ancient  prophecy  ; it  became  in 
the  New  Testament  the  elect  name  of  the  Redeemer  Psaimii.2* 
as  such  ; it  has  given  a name  to  His  religion  ; and  it 
marks  the  sanctity  of  those  who  are  one  with  Him  by  Dan.^x.  24- 
receiving  His  unction.  i John  u.  27. 


170  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


4.  How  does  the  New  Testament  exhibit  the  consecration 
of  Jesus  as  Christ? 

As  the  preparation  of  His  human  nature  at  the  con- 
Lukeii.  26.  ception  ; and  as  His  being  sealed  to  the  Messianic 
John  i.  31.  office  at  His  baptism.  The  first  was  the  basis  of 
the  second. 

6.  And  how  the  assumption  of  the  several  offices  ? 

Though  our  Lord  was  from  His  baptism  the  perfect 
Christ,  we  mark  that  in  Nazareth  He  formally  entered  on  the 
Luke  iv.  21.  prophetic  office  ; that  in  His  consecration  prayer  He 
John  xvii.  assumed  the  highpriesthood  ; and  after  the  resur- 
Matt.  xxviii.  rection,  on  the  mountain  in  Galilee,  announced  His 
assumption  of  all  power  as  given  to  Him  in  conse- 
quence of  His  death. 

6.  And  how  His  subsequent  exercise  of  it? 

He  is  still  in  heaven  the  one  Christ  in  the  three  offices : 
all  of  which  as  Christ  He  will  lay  down  at  the  last  day. 

I.  §^rist  as  '^rop^cf. 

1.  In  what  sense  do  we  use  this  word? 

In  its  widest,  most  absolute,  and  incommunicable  meaning 
as  the  Revealer  of  all  knowledge  to  man.  But  also  more  speci- 
fically as  the  Great  Teacher  of  the  Christian  revelation  : the 
Light  of  men,  and  the  Founder  of  Christianity. 

2.  In  the  latter  sense  how  may  it  be  unfolded? 

Our  Lord  was  a minister  to  His  own  generation  for  three 
years  ; and  Himself  the  Truth  for  all  time. 

3.  How  to  His  own  generation  ? 

He  was  the  Prophet  of  whom  Moses  said  to  his  people 
that  God  would  raise  Him  up  fi'ojn  among  your  brethren^  as 
Acts  vii.  37.  raised  up  7ne.  Hence  throughout  His  teaching 
Rom.  XV.  8.  He  is  an  expositor  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  a 
prophet  of  things  to  come  : a Minister  of  the  circumcision. 

4.  And  how  for  all  time? 

As  the  supreme  Lawgiver,  and  as  the  Preacher  of  His  own 


The  Historical  Christ. 


171 


gospel.  These  subjects,  therefore,  may  be  referred  to  a later 
stage,  when  Vocation  and  Ethics  are  before  us. 

II.  as  ^xicst. 

1.  What  does  this  term  cover  ? 

The  whole  work  of  the  Redeemer  as  offering  the  atoning 
sacrifice : both  on  earth  and  in  heaven. 

2.  How  is  it  presented  in  the  New  Testament? 

As  the  fulfilment  of  the  entire  sacrificial  service  of  the 
ancient  temple,  and  of  the  Old  Testament  generally. 

3.  What  is  the  relation  between  type  and  antitype  here  ? 

This  is  matter  of  great  importance.  There  are  two  op- 
posite and  contradictory  views. 

(1)  It  is  said  that  the  redeeming  work  of  Christ  is  only 
described  in  terms  derived  from  the  old  economy  and  accom- 
modated to  it.  This  is  an  utterly  false  view  of  type  and  anti- 
type, in  relation  to  the  coming  Redeemer. 

(2)  The  truth  is  that  the  ancient  system  was  constructed 
with  reference  to  the  future  atonement,  which  was  ^ ^ ... 
the  true  pattern  shown  on  the  mount.  The  sacri-  ^ vm.  5- 
ficial  ideas  are  not  figures  in  the  New  Testament : they  are 
figures  only  in  the  Old. 

4.  In  what  sense  was  Christ  anointed  as  priest? 

As  the  antitype  of  the  high  priest,  who  represented  in 
his  relation  to  Christ  the  whole  economy  of  priesthood  and 
sacrifice  and  temple. 

§ 1.  JPrtest. 

1.  Is  there  difference  here  between  priest  and  high  priest  ? 

Both  terms  are  used  of  our  Lord,  (i)  They  are  one  in 
the  supreme  idea,  that  of  representing  man  to  God  and  God 
to  man  ; (2)  they  differ  in  that  the  priest  was  occupied  in  the 
sacrifice  without,  the  high  priest  had  his  supreme  function  in 
entering  before  God  ; (3)  but  Christ  was  a priest  on  earth, 
though  He  sprang  out  of  Judah ^ and  is  high  priest 
in  heaven.  ^ 

8* 


172  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


2.  Was  the  high  priest  at  all  points  a type  of  Christ? 

Yes  : both  where  he  was  unlike  and  where  he  was  like 
Him.  As  to  the  former  : Aaron  and  his  successors  were  taken 
Heb.  V.  I.  from  ajnong  men.,  Christ  was  Separate  from  sinners  ; 
Heb  vii*  2^*  offered  for  their  own  sins^  He  only  for  the  sins 

Hebivii.'la,  of  the  people  ; they  were  many.^  He  had  an  urichange- 
able  priesthood. 

3.  How  otherwise  is  the  supremacy  of  Christas  office  marked  ? 

By  this,  that  He  alone  has  really  executed  the  office  of  a 
high  priest,  in  bringing  man  to  God  and  God  to  man  : the 
repeated  emphasis  is  on  His  entering  heaven  once 
e . IX.  12.  by  the  one  sacrifice  of  His  own  blood  ; whereas 

the  repetition  of  the  Levitical  sacrifices,  and  the  remaining 
of  the  veil  before  the  holiest,  showed  that  they  did  not  effect 
the  true  mediation. 

4.  Did  not  then  the  ancient  service  avail  for  any  end? 

(i)  It  was  the  service  of  a worldly  sanctuary  : as  to  the 
earthly  relation  of  the  people  to  their  God  it  was  thoroughly 
effectual.  But  (2)  only  of  a worldly  sanctuary  : as 
Heb.  IX.  I.  fellowship  with  God  in  the  heavenly  sanc- 

tuary it  was  only  a shadow  of  good  things  to  come.  (3)  Yet  the 
virtue  of  Christ’s  mediation  surrounded  and  pene- 
Heb.  X.  I.  ^-|*ated  the  whole  to  faith,  and  in  things  pertaining 
to  the  conscience. 

6.  What  other  tokens  are  given  of  this  last  point? 

In  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  gives  an  evangelical 
account  of  the  ancient  sanctuary,  are  three  other  remarkable 
proofs  : Melchizedek,  the  Oath,  and  the  One  Faith. 

(1)  It  is  said  that  there  was  a priestly  type  of  Christ 
higher  than  Aaron  : Melchizedek,  namely,  who  was  made  like 

unto  the  Son  of  God.,  and  represented  the  divinity, 
Heb.  vn.3.  unity,  and  abidingness  of  the  universal  priesthood, 
which  the  Levitical  foreshadowed  in  one  land  and  for  a limited 
period.  Melchizedek  represented  the  spiritual  priesthood  of 
Christ. 

(2)  The  highpriesthood  of  our  Lord  is  solemnly  declared  to 

have  been  established  on  the  oath  of  God,  rather 
Heb.  vii.  20.  upon  the  Levitical  law  of  priesthood  : the 


The  Historical  Christ. 


173 


OATH  that  confirms  the  promise  given  again  and  again  from 
the  beginning,  outside  of  Judaism  and  surrounding  it ; as  it 
were  the  gospel  before  the  law. 

(3)  It  is  shown  that  faith  in  a great  unseen  sacrifice 
availed  from  the  days  of  Abel  downward,  and  will 
avail  as  faith  in  the  sacrifice  manifested  to  the  end  ^ 
of  time. 

§ 2.  Satn’fices. 

1.  In  what  relation  do  these  stand  to  the  priesthood  of 

Christ  ? 

Everything  in  connection  with  them — their  rites,  their 
kinds,  their  times — furnishes  illustration  of  the  atonement, 
and  should  be  therefore  carefully  studied. 

2.  Illustrate  this  by  the  rites  of  sacrifice. 

(1)  The  presentation  and  examination  of  the  victim,  with 

the  laying  on  of  the  offerer’s  hands,  pointed  to  the  Saviour, 
Himself  Priest  and  Victim,  who  represented  the  ^ 

offerer  too:  He  offered  Himself  without  spot  to  God,  ^ -ix.  14. 

(2)  Also  the  slaughtering,  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood. 
It  is  the  blood  that  maketh  atonement  for  the  soul ; Lev.xvn.  n. 
because  the  life  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood.  The  blood  ^ev.  xxi.  6. 
of  atonement  was  sprinkled  on  the  altar  and  towards  the  veil. 
It  covered  or  cancelled  the  sin  or  guilt,  as  expiation  ; and  thus 
brought  God  near,  as  propitiation  : both  are  in  the  one  word. 

(3)  And  the  burning  by  sacrificial  fire  with  eating  of  part: 
that  is,  God  receiving  by  fire  and  man  as  food.  Both  ^ ^ 
signify  acceptance  and  reconciliation  ; and  have  their  ^ 

final  fulfilment  in  the  Lord’s  supper. 

3.  Did  all  these  rites  pertain  to  every  sacrifice  ? 

Not  as  complete  in  any  one.  But  all  unite  in  the  Lord’s 
offering. 

(1)  The  burnt  offering  was  the  earliest  and  supreme 

typical  sacrifice : including  all  but  the  eating.  God  ^ 

alone  received  it  by  fire  : He  once  for  all  received  the  21.' 
total  oblation  of  Jesus,  and  still  receives  ours  for  the 

sake  of  His. 

(2)  The  various  peace  offerings  were  based  upon  the 

former : personal  gratitude  and  dedication  of  gifts  Lev.  vU.  n. 
were  expressed  in  these.  He  is  our  peace,  ^p^-  ^4. 


174  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


(3)  The  sin  offering,  introduced  under  the  law,  was  the 
^ special  type  of  Christ’s  sacrifice  Who  was  made  sin 

2 Cor.  V.  21.  J ^ 

for  us. 

§ 3.  Sfasons  of  Satriflte. 

1.  What  seasons  of  sacrifice  were  specially  typical  of  the 

Christian  atonement  ? 

(i)  The  passover,  with  its  sequel  the  pentecost,  or  feast 
Ex.  xii.  of  weeks  ; in  the  spring. 

{2)  The  day  of  atonement,  in  the  autumn  ; when  the  high 
. priest  presented  the  blood  of  the  sin  offering  within 
ev.  XVI.  transgressions  of  the  whole  people. 

2.  How  were  these  related  to  each  other? 

(1)  The  passover  commemorated  the  redemption  of  the 
Israelites  from  bondage,  and  the  institution  of  Jehovah’s 
covenant  with  them  by  sacrifice.  It  was  the  feast  of  the 
families  of  Israel  as  such.  The  Lord’s  supper  is  the  Christian 
I Cor.  V.  7,  passover — Cht'ist  our  passover  is  sacrificed  for  us  ; 

wherefore  let  us  keep  the  feast — as  the  commemora- 
tion of  His  sacrifice. 

(2)  The  day  of  atonement  was  the  great  national  fast. 

3.  How  were  they  related  to  the  other  seasons  of  sacrifice  ? 

The  passover  was  the  first  of  three  national  feasts  : being 
followed  by  the  feast  of  weeks  and  the  feast  of  tabernacles. 
The  day  of  atonement  summed  up  once  in  the  year  the  daily 
ski  offerings,  and  the  sin  and  trespass  offerings  of  individuals. 

4.  How  were  they  related  to  the  Christian  sacrifice  ? 

They  foreshadowed  the  one  atonement,  as  the  expiation 
of  sin  and  the  redemption  of  man.  In  the  cross  they  and  all 
sacrifices  with  all  their  rites  found  their  end. 

III.  as 

1.  How  is  this  office  presented  to  ns  in  scripture? 

As  the  mediatorial  authority  of  Christ  in  His  one  person, 
Divine  and  human  ; based  however  on  His  death,  which 
obtained  for  Him  the  lordship  over  the  race  and 
Rom.  XIV.  9.  universe,  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  Divine 
eternal  purpose  ; and  exercised  until  the  last  day  from  His 
place  at  God’s  right  hand  in  heaven. 


The  Historical  Christ. 


175 


2.  What  is  its  relation  to  His  other  offices? 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  offices  are  not  distin- 
guished in  scripture  as  we  distinguish  them. 

(1)  The  prophetic  and  kingly  office  are  really  one  : Hear 

ye  Him  ! unites  them  for  ever.  Matt.xvii.5. 

(2)  Melchizedek  was  the  type  of  Christ  as  priest  and 
king.  When  the  Antitype  for  ever  sate  down  the  types  ceased 
and  were  absorbed  in  His  saving  presence  in  heaven. 

(3)  Hence  the  intercession  and  benediction  of  the  High 
Priest  in  heaven  is  part  of  His  supremacy,  and  not  to  be  distin- 
guished from  it.  He  blesses  as  the  ascended  Lord. 

3.  What  is  its  special  relation  to  the  church  ? 

The  Great  Priest  over  the  House  of  God  is  Head  of  the 
church  which  is  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  Our  Lord 
is  not  called  the  King  of  His  church  but  its  Head.  Heb.  x.  21 

4.  What  is  its  relation  to  theology  ? 

(1)  As  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Lawgiver  it  is  found 
in  the  ethics  of  redemption  and  the  doctrine  of  the  church. 

(2)  As  the  highpriestly  authority  it  appears  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  redemption  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

(3)  As  specially  the  royal  authority  its  exercise  takes  us 
to  the  doctrine  of  final  judgment. 

IV. 

/historical. 

1.  What  has  been  the  course  of  controversy  on  these  subjects? 

After  the  decisions  of  the  four  oecumenical  councils  as  to 
the  person  of  Christ,  controversy  was  continued  rather  with 
respect  to  the  nature  of  our  Lord’s  subordination : in  other 
words,  there  has  been  a continual  effort  to  fathom  the  im- 
penetrable mystery  of  the  union  of  the  two  natures. 

2.  What  were  the  earliest  forms  of  speculation? 

Two  errors  express  it : the  monophysite,  or  the  doctrine 
of  one  nature  in  Christ,  which  was  the  Eutychian  heresy 


176  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


revived ; and  the  monoth elite,  which  was  a compromise, 
urging  that  there  was  only  one  will  in  Christ.  These  were 
condemned  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  oecumenical  councils,  but 
representatives  of  them  remain  in  the  East  to  this  day. 

3.  What  form  did  it  take  at  the  Reformation? 

(1)  The  Lutherans  adopted  the  principle  that  after  the 
ascension  the  human  nature  of  Christ  was  clothed  with  Divine 
attributes  : by  a Communicatio  Idiomatum,  or  common  pos- 
session of  properties  between  the  two  natures.  This  gave 
the  technical  term  Ubiquity  to  the  glorified  humanity  as  the 
foundation  of  the  doctrine  of  Consubstantiation. 

(2)  The  Reformed  rejected  this  ; regarding  the  humilia- 
tion of  the  person  of  Christ  as  belonging  for  ever  to  both 
matures  : the  Divine  sank  into  an  obscuration  or  concealment 
only  of  its  attributes,  and  the  human  was  exalted  to  the  per- 
fection of  humanity  alone. 

(3)  The  Tridentine  council  confirmed  the  mediaeval  dogma 
of  a continued  repetition  of  the  humiliation  through  the  tran- 
substantiation  of  the  eucharistic  elements  : by  which  the 
Divine  and  human  are  really  confounded  and  made  one. 

4.  What  have  been  later  developments? 

It  has  been  thought  by  divines,  especially  in  Lutheranism, 
that  the  problem  of  theological  science  is  to  explain  the  unity 
of  Christas  Person  as  being  at  once  the  Infinite  and  the  finite. 

5.  How  has  this  been  attempted? 

Whereas  early  Lutheranism  was  content  with  exalting 
the  humanity  into  participation  of  Divine  attributes  at  the 
ascension,  more  modern  thought  begins  with  the  incarnation 
and  occupies  itself  with  theories  of  the  kenosis  or  emptying  of 
the  Son,  and  His  depotentiation  or  selfretraction  and  reduc- 
tion within  the  finite  limits  of  the  human  soul. 

6.  What  judgment  may  be  passed  on  this  ? 

That  it  goes  beyond  the  limits  of  inquiry  sanctioned  by 
revelation.  In  scripture  certain  principles  are  laid  down  not 
for  the  explanation  but  for  the  protection  of  this  unfathom- 


The  Historical  Christ. 


177 


able  doctrine,  (i)  The  condescension  of  the  Son  of  God  was 
His  divesting  Himself  of  the  manifestation  of  His  .. 
attributes:  His  essential  Divinity  being  immutable.  Heb.’xHi!’8. 

(2)  The  humiliation  was  that  of  His  Person  until  the 
end  of  the  world.  (3)  The  end  will  be  like  the  be- 
ginning, the  unhumbled  condescension  of  the  Son  to  abide  in 
human  nature  for  ever. 

7.  May  not  speculation  be  allowed  to  go  farther  than  this  ? 

Never  with  success.  Christ  is  the  mystery  of  God : not 
only  as  a secret  revealed,  but  as  a secret  eternally 
incomprehensible.  And  the  only  language  in  which 
thought  on  this  subject  may  be  safely  shaped  is  that  of  the 
scripture  itself. 

8.  Meanwhile,  are  not  the  two  estates  and  the  three  offices 

mutually  protective? 

They  are  so : for  the  prophetic,  priestly,  and  regal  func- 
tions of  the  Christ  require  the  precise  distinction  of  the  two 
natures,  whether  as  humbled  or  exalted  ; while  the  unity  of 
the  Person  in  both  estates  ensures  the  eternal  fulfilment  of  all 
that  the  offices  mean.  In  each  tlie  Divine  underlies  the  human. 

9.  What  general  safeguards  may  be  laid  down  with  regard 

to  the  three  offices  ? 

(1)  It  is  important  to  remember  that  in  this  sense  also 
Christ  is  not  divided  : His  Person  and  His  work  are  alike  one. 

(2)  That  the  sacrificial  office  of  the  High  Priest  is  really 
fundamental,  and  contains  the  marrow  and  substance  of  the 
Saviour’s  mediatorial  redemption. 

(3)  That  most  of  the  errors  which  afflict  the  Christian 
church  have  sprung  from  forgetting  this.  Hence  by  a large 
number  the  Saviour’s  relation  to  mankind  is  reduced  to  that 
of  a teacher  or  lord  in  morals,  preeminent  among  human 
authorities  but  only  human. 

(4)  The  observation  already  made  cannot  be  too  often 
repeated,  that  the  mystery  of  our  Lord’s  condescension  to 
appear  in  the  flesh  is  one  that  in  our  present  estate  at  least,  if 
not  for  ever,  cannot  with  any  success  be  inquired  into. 

(5)  The  scriptural  method  of  setting  the  subject  before  us 
is  that  of  giving  our  Lord  a series  of  names,  which  severally 
and  unitedly  furnish  the  best  exhibition  of  His  manifold 


178  Th  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


character.  To  these  names,  which,  like  the  names  of  God,  are 
objects  of  faith  rather  than  investigation,  we  now  turn. 

V. 

of 

1.  What  is  the  importance  of  the  scriptural  names  of  our  Lord  ? 

They  range  over  the  Person,  the  estates  and  the  offices  of 
Christ ; and  are  as  it  were  the  terms  by  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
teaches  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  Hence  the  study  of  these 
names,  singly  and  collectively,  is  the  study  of  Christian  theology, 

2.  What  class  of  names  define  the  Person  of  our  Lord? 

Some  belong  to  the  pretemporal  Redeemer  ; some  to  His 
incarnate  estate  ; and  some  are  derived  from  both,  or  are 
common  to  the  Godhead  and  the  manhood. 

3.  Can  any  names  be  surely  applied  to  the  being  of  Christ 

before  the  incarnation  ? 

He  is  called  God  ; He  is  by  comparison  of  passages 
Jehovah  or  Lord  ; but  it  is  as  the  Son  that  His  pretempoial 
John  i.  I.  estate  is  most  directly  indicated.  And  when  He  is 
Luke^Ve  spoken  of  as  the  Only-begotten,  this  goes  highei 
John  iii.  1*6.  than  His  miraculous  conception  : a point  of  profound 
importance. 

4.  What  names  express  the  incarnation  ? 

As  incarnate  our  Lord  is  once  called  Immanuel,  though 
Matt  i 2 rather  as  a sign  than  as  a name  ; His  own  designation 
Isa.  yii.  14.  of  Himself  was  Son  of  man.  Theology  has  no 
Passim.  specific  term  for  the  mystery  of  the  One  Person 
answering  to  that  of  Trinity  for  the  mystery  of  the  Godhead  ; 
but  adopts  adjectives,  such  as  Incarnate  and  Divine-human. 

6.  What  names  embrace  the  Divine  and  human  natures? 

The  Son  in  its  general  application  blends  the  two  ; and 
it  is  perhaps  the  only  one  that  does  so. 

6.  What  may  be  called  the  official  names? 

They  are  of  two  classes : those  which  emphasise  the 
dignity  in  the  humiliation,  and  those  which  emphasise  the 


The  Historical  Christ. 


179 


humiliation  rather  than  the  dignity.  The  latter  are  most 
common. 

7.  Which  are  the  former? 

He  is  called  the  Lord,  the  Lord  of  Glory,  as  crucified ; 
THE  Prince  of  Life  ; we  may  add  also  the  Word  ; ^ ..  g 

and  THE  First-begotten  : before  every  creature^  and  Acts  Hi.  15*. 
from  the  dead.  But  none  of  these  names  has  passed 
into  ordinary  use. 

8.  Which  are  the  latter? 

Jesus,  the  Christ,  the  Servant  (or,  as  formerly,  Child^ 
TToxi)  of  God  ; and  all  those  names  which  He  receives 
from  His  several  offices  : these  however  being  not  so  ^ 
much  names  as  theological  designations  of  our  Lord  in  relation 
to  His  work.  A name  not  used  in  scripture,  the  isa.  Hx.  20. 
Redeemer,  has  become  the  most  usual  designation  in  xi.26. 
the  Christian  church. 

9.  What  are  the  names  of  His  prophetic  office  ? 

Some  were  transitory,  belonging  to  His  earthly  ministry  : 
such  as  Rabbi,  Prophet,  Teacher,  Minister  of  the  Cir-  ^v.  8. 
cumc’sion.  Apostle.  Nor  has  any  been  permanent, 
unless  THE  Word  may  be  considered  an  abiding  name. 

10.  What  are  those  which  His  priesthood  gives  Him  ? 

They  are  very  abundant : High  Priest,  Paraclete,  ^ ..  ^ 

the  Lamb  of  God,  the  Propitiation,  being  the  most  John  i.V. 
prominent.  ijohmv.  10. 

11.  Which  spring  from  His  mediatorial  kingship  ? 

The  preeminent  is  the  Lord,  which  absorbs  into  itself  all 
others.  This  is  perhaps  the  most  universally  used  of  all  the 
names  that  His  offices  have  given  the  Saviour.  It  answers 
rather  to  the  Adonai  than  to  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ; and  may  be  traced  throughout  the  New  Testament  as 
the  expression  of  the  reverence  of  the  disciples.  Bearing  this 
significance  it  is  combined  with  almost  every  other. 

12.  What  miscellaneous  names  are  applied  to  the  Lord  ? 
The  whole  of  scripture  abounds  with  figurative  expres- 
sions, taken  from  every  region,  to  describe  the  character  and 


i8o  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


supreme  excellence  and  unbounded  preciousness  of  Christ. 
Our  Lord  Himself  has  used  them  in  large  number  : the 
catalogue  of  figurative  designations  which  He  has  given  to 
Himself  is  a very  large  and  very  instructive  one.  These  be- 
long rather  to  devotional  theology. 

13.  How  are  these  names  combined  in  scripture  ? 

The  combinations  are  very  diversified,  and  should  be 
studied  as  they  occur,  and  where  they  occur,  with  reference 
to  the  reasons  for  them.  It  will  be  found  that  Jesus  gradually 
became  Christ,  each  word  by  degrees  passing  from  an  official 
designation  to  a personal  name,  and  then  Jesus  Christ.  Jn  St. 
Peter^s  epistles  we  have  the  most  lofty  combinations,  the 
2Pet.  i.  1, 2,  second  surpassing  the  first  : Our  God  and  Saviour 
II-  ’ ’ Jesus  Christ,  Jesus  our  Lord,  Our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  The  Apocalypse  gives  a variety  ot 
new  figurative  names,  together  with  some  which  identify  Him 
with  Jehovah. 

14.  How  are  we  to  understand  the  infrequent  application  of 

the  word  God  to  our  Saviour  ? 

(i)  On  the  ground  of  His  subordination  to  the  Father  in 
the  work  of  redemption.  (2)  Because  it  is  His  Eternal  Son- 
ship  that  required  everywhere  to  be  made  prominent.  (3) 
But  it  must  be  remembered  that  on  certain  occasions,  when 
His  dignity  required  it,  the  supreme  appellation  is  unsparingly 
applied  to  Him : for  instance,  the  God  Who  is  over 

Rom.ix.5. 

15.  What  reflections  arise  from  the  whole  ? 

Jt  may  be  said  generally  : 

(1)  That  the  names  of  our  Lord  are  really  the  best  and 
sometimes  the  only  demonstrative  texts  to  be  quoted  in 
Christian  theology. 

(2)  That  their  application  in  the  New  Testament  should 
strictly  govern  our  use. 

(3)  That  the  study  of  them  should  impress  upon  us  the 
profound  reverence  which  belongs  to  the  Name  which  is  above 

Pet.  i.  8.  every  name.  Adjectives  of  familiarity  or  endearment 

hii.  ii.  9.  should  be  cautiously  used,  even  in  the  language  of 

Chiistian  devotion. 


The  Finished  Atonement. 


i8i 


Chapter  IV. 

^inis^e6  Jlfoncmcnf. 

JPreli'mmarp. 

1.  What  is  meant  by  Finished  Atonement  ? 

The  result  of  that  mediatorial  intervention  the  processes 
of  which,  on  earth  and  in  heaven,  we  have  been  tracing. 

2.  What  is  the  force  of  finished  ? 

It  means  that  it  is  regarded  as  an  objectively  accomplished 
fact  : (i)  thus  distinguished  from  its  virtual  accomplishment 
since  the  foundation  of  the  world  ; and  (2)  from  the  sub- 
jective benefit  of  it  to  mankind  and  believers. 

3.  Thus  viewed,  how  is  the  atonement  to  be  defined  ? 

It  has,  and  must  have,  two  definitions,  according  to  the 
more  general  and  the  more  strict  sense  of  the  term  atone- 
ment : in  other  words,  its  Old-Testament  and  its  New-Testa- 
ment  significance. 

4.  What  is  that  difference? 

The  popular  idea  regards  atonement  as  that  which  is 
offered  to  propitiate  Divine  wrath ; that  is  the  levitical  sense. 
Its  meaning  in  the  New  Testament,  like  that  of  KaraXkay^  in 
St.  Paul,  is  the  resulting  reconciliation  between  God  and  man. 
The  difference  is  between  the  means  and  the  result. 

5.  Then  what  is  the  true  definition  as  including  both  ? 

The  reconciliation  between  God  and  the  human  race 
through  the  vicarious  mediation  and  sacrificial  obedience  of 
Jesus  Christ.  This  combines  the  two. 

6.  Define  the  terms  of  the  definition. 

(i)  The  first  part  of  it  lays  stress  on  the  relation  of  the 


i82  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


vicarious  atonement  to  the  race  : there  is  nothing  vicarious, 
strictly  speaking,  in  its  application  to  the  individual. 

(2)  The  reconciliation  includes  God  and  man : it  is 
between  these  two.  There  is  literally  no  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment (perhaps  in  English  at-one-ment)  on  any  other  sup- 
position. Man  alone  reconciled  to  God  is  an  anomaly. 

(3)  The  sacrificial  obedience  refers  to  the  active  and 
passive  offering  of  Himself  by  the  Son  to  the  Father  as 
instead  of  the  passive  suffering  and  the  active  obedience  of 
mankind : both  being  vicarious  as  to  the  race  ; and  in  their 
unity  the  virtue  or  the  value  effecting  the  reconciliation. 

(4)  But  the  term  through  must  be  connected  with 
mediation  as  well  as  sacrificial  obedience : through  the 
mediation  itself  God  shows  that  He  is  reconciled  : as  having 
pro\dded  the  propitiation  through  which  alone  His  love 
could  be  revealed. 

(5)  The  term  vicarious  implies,  however,  a redemption  of 
the  race  : it  is  not  only  vicarious  presentation  TO  God,  but  for 
man  also  ; and  the  race  is  redeemed. 

7.  How  may  we  systematise  and  simplify  all  this  ? 

The  atonement  is  to  be  considered,  first,  in  its  essence  as 
offered  by  Christ  and  accepted  by  God  ; secondly,  in  its  three- 
fold result  as  the  expiation  of  sin,  as  the  reconciliation  of  God 
and  man,  and  as  man^s  redemption. 

I. 

Jlfottement  as  '^xesenteb. 

1.  What  aspects  of  onr  subject  belong  to  this? 

Those  only  which  concern  the  necessity,  the  reality  and 
the  perfection  of  the  Redeemers  sacrificial  oblation. 

2.  How  may  these  be  shewn  ? 

In  the  relation  of  God  and  man,  demanding  atonement ; 
the  relation  of  Christ  and  man,  making  it  possible;  and  the 
relation  of  God  and  Christ,  rendering  it  perfect* 


The  Finished  Atonement. 


183 


§ 1.  0oti  aulj  t!)e  Smner. 

1.  Wliat  is  the  ground  of  the  necessity  of  Christ’s  oblation  ? 

The  relation  between  man  and  his  Creator  is  disturbed  by 
sin  ; and  the  atonement  is  the  method  of  its  restoration. 

2.  Must  this  necessarily  be  by  atonement? 

Why  it  must  be  thus  is  an  inquiry  beyond  our  faculties. 
Nor  are  human  analogies  sufficient  to  solve  it.  Enough  that 
the  voice  of  conscience  is  heard  asking,  How  should 
man  he  just  with  God?  and  revelation  gives  one 
only  answer. 

3.  But  does  not  the  heart  of  sinful  man  rely  upon  the 

sovereign  compassion  of  G-od  towards  his  misery  ? 

Never  in  its  uncorrupted  impulses.  Deep  in  the  human 
spirit  is  lodged  a dread  of  God  as  offended,  and  not  merely  of 
His  power  to  punish.  This  latter  is  awakened  first  in  con- 
viction  of  sin,  but  with  pardon  and  renewal  comes  the  pro- 
founder consciousness  of  the  sinfulness  of  sin  in  itself. 

4.  Then  revelation  does  not  declare  this  necessity? 

It  does  not  formally  state  or  prove  this  ; but  everywhere 
assumes  it,  as  the  being  of  God  and  the  strength  of  sin  ^att.  xxvi. 
are  assumed.  If  it  be  possible  is  followed  by  the  cross.  39- 

6.  How  is  the  necessity  of  atonement  more  particularly 
viewed  in  theological  treatment  ? 

By  referring  it  to  the  law  and  to  the  nature  of  God. 

6.  How  to  His  law? 

That  is  protected  by  the  Divine  justice,  which  demands 
reparation  to  the  law  itself  in  the  Person  of  the  Lawgiver,  and 
its  vindication  in  His  universal  government. 

7.  How  to  His  nature  ? 

That  is  protected  by  the  Divine  holiness,  which  demands 
that  sin  should  be  put  away  in  order  to  the  sinner’s  restoration 
to  fellowship  with  God.  The  atonement — to  put 
away  sin  {els  d$€Trj(rLv) — has  effect  both  as  to  this  and  *** 
the  former. 


184  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


8.  But  may  not  both  these  ends  be  met  by  the  forgiveness 

of  sheer  omnipotence? 

This  has  been  the  leading  contention  of  all  opponents  of 
the  doctrine  of  atonement.  But,  even  if  unconditional  forgive- 
ness were  consistent  with  the  Divine  justice,  the  Divine  holi- 
ness would  require  that  the  sinner’s  nature  should  be  changed 
in  order  to  fellowship  with  it. 

9.  Does  the  word  of  revelation  make  a distinction  between 

these  two  kinds  of  necessity  ? 

(1)  The  justice  of  God  guarding  His  law,  and  His  holiness 
guarding  His  nature,  are  one  in  God  Himself  : it  is  He  who 
demands  the  mediation  of  atonement  in  our  return  to  His 
law  and  to  Himself  ; and  the  Christian  atonement  secures  both. 

(2)  But  the  scripture  adopts  these  two  methods  of  teach- 
ing the  doctrine  ; which,  a unity  in  itself,  runs  in  two  distinct 
lines  of  phraseology  : one  teaching  our  restoration  to  God’s 
favour,  and  the  other  our  recovery  to  His  holiness. 

10.  How  is  our  definition  shaped  at  this  point  ? 

The  atonement  is  the  Divine  provision  for  annulling 
human  sin  both  as  guilt  and  as  defilement. 

§ 2.  antf  pinner* 

1.  What  relation  does  the  atonement  reveal  between  Christ 

and  man  the  object  of  His  intervention  ? 

The  Incarnate  Son  is,  though  with  a certain  differencei 
the  substitute,  the  representative,  and  the  other  self  of  men. 

2.  How  may  that  certain  difiterence  be  viewed  ? 

With  respect  to  the  race,  to  the  church,  and  to  the  indi- 
vidual : a distinction,  however,  which  must  be  cautiously  used. 

3.  How  with  respect  to  the  race  of  mankind  ? 

Christ  is  most  absolutely  the  vicarious  Redeemer  of  the 
world : what  we  now  call  human  nature  He  assumed  and 
^aved.  As  to  this  the  vicariousness  is  express,  and  avri  is  the 


The  Finished  Atonement. 


185 


preposition  : Himself  man^  Christ  Jesus^  Who  gave  Himself  a 
ransom  for  alL  In  His  own  words  a ransom  for  i Tim.  a.  5, 
maily  (olvtl).  Matt.  xx.  28. 

4.  How  as  to  His  body,  the  cliurcli  ? 

Here  the  representative  character  almost  excludes  the 
substitutionary.  One  died  for  all^  therefore  all  died^  2 cor.  5. 14. 
and  the  preposition  is  virepy  on  behalf  of.  And  in 
this  sense  He  is  gone  to  appear  bejore  the  face  of  God  for  us. 

5.  And  as  to  the  individual? 

There  is  more  than  either  the  vicarious  or  the  representa- 
tive character  : the  believer  is  one  with  Christ  by  a mystical 
union.  As  in  St.  Paul’s  I have  been  crucified  with  oai.  ii.  20. 
Christy  and  that  I may  know  Hiniy  and  the  power  of  Phil.  ill.  10. 
His  resurrectioiiy  and  the  fellowship  0/  His  sufferings. 

§ 3.  in  ©tnst. 

1.  What  does  this  imply  ? 

That  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord’s  Person  gave  an  infinite 
value  to  the  offering  which  as  perfect  Man  He  presented  for 
men.  His  blood  is,  reverently  speaking,  called  by 
God  indirectly  through  the  apostle  His  own  blood.  c sxx.  2 . 

2.  How  does  scripture  express  this  ? 

During  the  process  the  Father’s  word  is  : This  is  My 
beloved  Sony  in  Whom  I am  well  pleased.  And  after  Matt.xvii.5. 
the  accomplishment  it  is  said  that  God  was  in  Christ  2 Cor.  v.  ig. 
reconciling  the  world  unto  Himself,  But  generally  the  fact 
that  He  who  died  for  us  is  the  Son  of  God  is  sup-  ^ ^ 

posed  to  speak  enough  : He  gave  Himself ! The  ^ 
blood  and  the  life  rise  into  Himself. 

3.  How  does  the  distinction  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ 

affect  the  doctrine  ? 

He  accomplished  a perfect  obedience  in  our  fallen  nature, 
and  so  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh  : not  only  as  an 
ojfering  for  siuy  but  also  as  showing  perfect  love  to 
God  and  man  in  retrieved  human  nature.  This,  however,  He 
did  not  for  Himself,  but  as  God  in  the  flesh.  For  whose  benefit 
but  man’s  ? 

4.  How  is  the  term  Merit  to  be  understood  ? 

(i)  It  is  the  term  by  which  theology  expresses  the  value 


i86  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


laid  upon  the  offering  of  the  Incarnate  Son  by  the  Father  : that 
iPet.  i.  19.  value  being  set  against  human  sin.  (2)  Similarly  it 
Eph.  V.  2.  speaks  of  the  virtue  of  the  atonement,  corresponding 
with  the  personal  merit  of  Him  who  offered  it.  (3)  And  both 
it  sometimes  expresses  by  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  a 
p • IV.  32.  which  literally  is  not  found,  any  more  than 

the  other  two,  in  the  New  Testament. 

II. 

JUoncment  '25icit)c5  as  in  iis  'Result. 

1.  How  may  this  be  analysed  ? 

As  to  God  its  effect  is  expressed  as  propitiation  ; as  to 
God  and  man  reconciliation ; as  to  man  alone  redemption. 

2.  Can  these  be  separated  ? 

Though  the  terms  run  into  each  other,  this  distinction 
will  be  found  a great  help  to  the  understanding  of  the 
phraseology  of  the  New  Testament,  and  therefore  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  atonement  taught  by  it. 

§ 1.  propitiation. 

1.  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  term? 

The  one  Greek  word  Wao-Kia-Oai  divides  into  two  in  trans- 
lation. In  propitiation  God  is  supposed  to  be  brought  near 
again  (prope).  In  expiation,  the  sin  is  hidden  from  His  view. 
God  is  propitiated  ; and  sin  is  expiated  or  cancelled  or  an- 
nulled as  guilt  by  being  covered  from  His  sight  (the  Hebrew 
word  for  atonement). 

2.  In  what  connections  is  the  term  used  ? 

Always  in  close  relation  with  the  High  priestly  sacrifice. 

(1)  Christ  is  a merciful  and  faithful  high  priest  in 
things  pertaining  to  God^  to  make  propitiation  for  the  sins  of 

the  people  (tAao-Kecr^ai,  wrongly  translated  recon- 
Heb.  11. 17.  ciliation). 

(2)  He  was  set  forth  to  he  a propitiation^  through  faith^  by 

His  blood  {IXaarrjpLov,  the  propitiatory  covering,  or 
Rom.  111.25.  mercy-seat). 

(3)  And  He  is  now  in  His  own  person  the  propitiation  for 
I John  ii.  2.  our  sins  in  heaven  (tAao'/xos). 

(4)  What  is  perhaps  the  last  word  on  the  subject  repeats 


The  Finished  Atonement. 


187 


this  of  His  whole  mission.  And  sent  His  Son  to  he  the  pro- 
pitiation for  our  sins.  In  all  His  work  He  is  the 

<v  , I John  IV.  10. 

LAacrjuios* 

3.  Are  sinners  said  to  propitiate  the  justice  or  wrath  of  G-od  ? 

(1)  Certainly  not  His  justice,  which  cannot  be  propitiated, 
but  must  like  His  love  be  satisfied. 

(2)  Nor  are  we,  as  receiving  the  atonement,  said  to  pro- 
pitiate or  appease  the  Divine  displeasure  ; but  to  avail  our- 
selves of  the  expiation  which  God  has  provided. 

(3)  For  God  Himself,  and  Christ  our  high  priest,  are  in  the 
passages  just  quoted  the  personal  subjects  of  the  verb  propitiate. 
Rather  Christ  propitiates^  and  God  reconciles  to  Himself. 

§ 2.  i^letottc^l^at^on. 

1.  How  is  the  term  reconciliation  introduced  ? 

Strictly  speaking  only  by  St.  Paul,  who  uses  it  in  three 
relations,  which  must  be  carefully  collated. 

(ly  God  was  m Christ  reco7iciling  the  world  unto  Himself. 
We  were  reconciled  to  God  thi'ough  the  death  of  His  2Cor.  v.  19. 
Son,  Here  it  is  a past  transaction  ; and  the  recon-  Rom.  v.  10. 
ciliation  was  once  for  all  effected  through  the  cross. 

(2)  The  gospel  is  the  ministi^y  of  reconciliation,^  zCor.  v.  18. 
and  to  receive  it  is  to  have  received  the  reconciliation.  Rom.  v.  n. 

(3)  This  reconciliation  as  preached  is  distinguished  from  the 

peace  and  salvation  and  life  which  follow  its  reception.  ^ ^ 

It  is  the  ground  of  the  appeal : Be  ye  reconciled  to  God.  ^ 

2.  Is  not  God  always  the  Reconciler  and  not  the  Reconciled  ? 

He  is  said  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  Himself- — to  be  inter- 
preted by  the  world  unto  Himself — because  the  way  coi.  i.  20. 
of  restoration  in  Christ  Our  Peace  is  from  Him.  It 

1 1 7 lipn.  11.  14. 

pleased  the  Bather,  Coi.  i.  19. 

8.  Then  what  definition  of  the  atonement  arises  here? 

It  is  the  restoration  of  fellowship  between  God  and  man- 
kind through  the  mediation  of  Christ  who  was  made  2Cor.v.2i. 
Po  be  sin  o?i  our  behalf,^  and  who  suffered  that  He  ^ ^8. 

might  bring  us  to  God, 

4.  But  this  seems  to  make  God  alone  the  reconciled  ? 

And  that  is  the  truth  in  the  objective  atonement  : our 
personal  reconciliation  belongs  to  its  application  by  the  Spirit. 


1 88  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


6.  Will  the  scriptural  use  of  the  term  sanction  this  ? 

It  is  not  used  concerning  the  atonement  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. But  in  the  Apocrypha  we  find  it : They  besought  the 
merciful  Lord  to  be  recoiicijed  with  His  servants. 

2 Macc.  viii.  ^ kindred  word  is  used  of  David  : Wherewith  should 
iSam.  xxix.  reco7tcUe  hhns  elf  unto  his  master?  And  by  our 

mIu.  V.15.  Lord,  First  be  reconciled  to  thy  brother.  St.  Paul 
iCor.vn.ii,  very  same  word,  Or  else  be  reconciled  to  her 

husband.  Now  in  all  these  cases  the  reconciliation  must  be 
mutual,  at  least : if  not  specially  of  the  party  with  whom  the 
reconciliation  is  to  take  place. 

§ 3.  i^eUmpti'on. 

1.  How  is  this  term  related  to  those  which  precede  ? 

They  refer  rather  to  the  sin  in  man  and  the  attributes  in 
God  which  rendered  the  atonement  necessary  ; this  refers 
rather  to  the  sinners  themselves  as  redeemed. 

2.  Does  it  not  introduce  a new  idea  ? 

It  regards  sin  as  bondage,  Christ  as  a deliverer,  and  His 
atonement  as  the  paying  down  of  a ransom-price. 

3.  Has  this  word  price  an  allusion  to  sin  as  debt? 

Not  precisely  : wherever  the  value  of  our  Lord’s  obla- 
tion is  mentioned  it  is  not  as  set  against  an  amount  due  from 
I Pet.  i.  18,  us,  but  as  the  price  at  which  we  ourselves  have  been 
19  bought. 

4.  Bought  out  or  released  that  is  from  bondage  ? 

From  the  bondage  of  sin  : first  as  a penalty  and  then  as  a 
power.  Satan  and  death  are  only  subordinate. 

6.  How  is  the  Lord’s  sacrifice  related  to  the  former? 

(1)  He  gave  His  a ransom  for  many;  and  We  have  our 

Matt  XX  28  through  His  blood ; and  He  gave  Himself 

Eph.  i.  7*.  * Cl  ransom  for  all ; He  entered  in  having  obtained 
f Tim.  11. 6.  redemption. 

(2)  But  all  these  are  shewn  to  be  synonymous  with  the 
atonement  or  propitiation  : Through  the  redemption  that  is  in 
Heb  ix  12  Christ  Jesus^  Whom  God  set  forth  to  be  a propitia- 
Rom'.iii.  24,  tion.  In  this  and  other  passages  the  ideas  of  sacrifice 

*5*  and  redemption  blend. 


T he  Finished  A tonement. 


i8g 


(3)  But  always  the  redemption  contains  a ransom-price 
or  XvTpov  for  persons  or  the  world  viewed  as  all  men. 

6.  And  how  is  it  related  to  the  latter,  or  the  power  of  sin  ? 

(1)  In  the  Old  Testament  we  have  the  idea  of  a goel,  or 
kinsman,  who  is  obliged  to  redeein  that  which  his  , 
brother  sold. 

(2)  In  the  New  Testament  our  Redeemer  not  only  releases 
from  bondage,  or  the  curse  of  the  law^  but  also  pur-  oai.  Hi.  13, 
chases  back  our  lost  inheritance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  or  ^4- 

the  hies smg  of  Abraham,  The  two  aspects  of  our  redemption 
are  inseparable. 

(3)  And  by  the  power  of  His  Spirit  Christ 
purposes  to  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity^  and  purify 
unto  Himself 

7.  Is  this  redemption,  as  objective,  for  all? 

It  is  absolutely  a universal  redemption. 

(1)  Like  every  word  belonging  to  the  atonement,  this  one 
is  as  wide  as  sin  or  the  sinning  race  : sin  and  redemption  are 
correlative,  and  throughout  the  doctrine  have  the  same  extent. 

(2)  The  first  and  the  last  passages  in  the  New  Testament 
are  very  clear.  The  Son  of  man  came  to  give  His  Matt.  xx.  28. 
life  a ransom  for  many  is  quoted,  as  it  were,  and  ^ 
strengthened  by  St.  Paul  in  a unique  saying,  Who  gave  Himselj 
a ransom  for  all : here  the  iroW^v  becomes  TravTCDv,  the  yjrvx^v 
becomes  cavrov,  and  the  Xvrpov  becomes  avTiXvTpov, 

8.  But  the  term  is  often  used  in  a more  limited  sense? 

Yes  ; like  reconciliation  in  this.  But  unlike  it  in  that 
another  class  of  words  is  sometimes  employed  to  express  the 
application  of  redemption  to  the  church  and  individuals. 

9.  Which  are  they  ? 

Terms  which  have  not  the  central  idea  of  price  Gai.  i.  4. 
or  Xvrpov  in  them  : such  as  deliver,  purchase,  release,  J^xhess^i' 
rescue,  all  applied  to  the  saving  effect  of  redemption.  10. 

10.  Then,  after  all,  is  not  redemption  both  universal  and 

particular  ? 

There  is,  as  it  used  to  be  said,  redemption  by  price  and 


I go  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


by  power.  The  living  God  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  specially 
I Tim.  iv.  them  that  believe.  The  names  Saviour  and  Re- 
deemer  are  really  the  same  : the  former  for  His 
people,  the  latter  for  the  world. 

III. 

c^i^forical. 

1.  How  may  we  trace  here  the  current  of  doctrine? 

By  showing  how  from  age  to  age  the  definitions  of  the 
atonement  have  varied  under  the  influence  of  a few  leading 
ideas,  more  or  less  affecting  the  whole  economy  of  grace. 

2.  What  was  it  in  the  ante-Nicene  age  ? 

No  formal  definition  was  laid  down  ; and  the  beginnings 
of  error  appear.  But  the  doctrine  was  generally  that  of  a 
substitutionary  sacrifice  offered  for  the  human  race. 

8.  How  did  those  errors  begin  to  develcpe  ? 

(1)  Some  held  that  the  sacrifice  offered  to  God  was  also 
a ransom-price  paid  down  to  Satan  : either  as  righteously  dis- 
charging his  claim  or  Divinely  rescuing  the  race  from  his 
lawful  power.  This  notion  was  long  and  widely  diffused. 

(2)  The  sacrifice  began  to  be  regarded,  by  Augustine 

first,  as  only  for  the  saved ; that  is,  really,  for  elected  indivi- 
duals : not  for  the  race.  As  a pendant  and  opposite,  Origen 
had  early  made  its  benefit  overflow  to  all  evil  in  the  universe. 
^ ^ He  read  the  text,  not  by  the  grace  of  God^  but  out^ 

^ side  of  God  (x^pts).  He  should  taste  death  for  all^  not 

for  every  man. 

(3)  The  Gnostic  conceptions  of  the  atonement  as  rescue 
from  the  evil  principle  in  matter  are  beyond  our  subject. 

4.  How  was  the  truth  held  in  the  patristic  age? 

It  prospered  under  the  happy  influence  of  the  decisions  as 
to  the  Person  of  Christ.  And  the  best  of  the  early  fathers 
laid  stress  on  penalty  annulling  guilt ; on  the  possibility  of  the 
vicarious  endurance  of  penalty  ; on  the  value  stamped  by  His 
Divinity  on  the  human  suffering  and  death  which  His 
humanity  enabled  the  Redeemer  to  undergo. 


The  Finished  Atonement. 


igi 


5.  What  lax  view,  not  absolutely  error,  began  to  appear  ? 

From  Origen  and  Augustine  down  to  Anselm,  in  the 
twelfth  century,  there  was  a strong  tendency  to  regard  the 
atonement  as  an  expedient  of  the  omnipotent  will  of  God  : in 
the  case  of  Augustine,  this  was  in  profound  harmony  with  his 
predestinarian  doctrine  of  sin  and  redemption. 

6.  What  was  the  Anselmic  crisis  ? 

Anselm’s  treatise  Cur  Deus  Homo  stamped  on  the 
doctrine  the  idea  of  the  Redeemer's  voluntary  discharge  of  a 
necessary  obligation  ; the  necessity  in  God  Himself  of  satisfac- 
tion to  Divine  justice  ; and  the  mp:rit  of  Christ  as  more  than 
sufficient  for  any  debt  or  obligation  possibly  to  be  incurred. 

7.  What  effect  had  this  emphatic  note  ? 

It  has  been  the  main  element  in  all  the  formulas  of 
Christendom : Tridentine,  Lutheran,  Reformed  mostly  agree- 
ing as  to  the  absolute  necessity  of  atoning  satisfaction  and 
the  sufficiency  of  the  merit  of  Christ.  Sin  was  measured 
rather  by  the  dignity  of  God  than  by  the  insignificance  of  man. 

8.  How  was  the  influence  of  this  fundamental  principle  seen  ? 

The  atonement  of  Christ  being  fixed  to  be  the  payment 
or  discharge  of  an  obligation,  theories  variously  divided. 

(1)  The  payment  may  be  exact:  then  follows  the  doctrine 
of  the  Calvinistic  Reformed,  that  Christ  died  for  the  elect, 
whose  precise  punishment  He  bore  and  whose  failing  obedi- 
ence He  supplies,  both  consummated  in  one  sacrifice. 

(2)  It  may  be  superabundant  ; and  then  follows  the 
treasury  formed  by  the  superfluity  for  the  remission  of 
individual  sins  and  their  temporal  penalty  : as  it  were  by  an 
atonement  added  to  the  atonement. 

(3)  It  may  be  sufficient  indefinitely  : then  comes  in  the 
theory  technically  called  acceptilatio,  from  a Roman  forensic 
term  which  signified  acquittance  without  exact  equivalent 
but  on  grounds  held  sufficient.  Thence  arose  the  Arminian 
doctrine,  which  laid  stress  on  the  compassion  of  God  accepting 
the  Son’s  selfsacrifice  instead  of  the  punishment  due. 

(4)  It  may  be  regarded  as  required  only  or  mainly  for  the 


IQ2  The  Mediatorial  Work  of  the  Redeemer. 


vindication  of  the  law.  Grotius  and  the  later  Arminians  held 
this  view  : called  the  rectoral  or  government  theory. 

9.  Meanwhile  what  other  effect  had  it  ? 

To  excite  an  opposite  tendency,  represented  first  by 
Abaelard  and  continuing  to  the  present  day  : that  of  denying 
any  necessity  in  God  for  atonement  or  reparation  to  His  law  ; 
and  reducing  Christ’s  sacrifice  to  an  exhibition  of  the  Divine 
love  in  its  absolute  and  most  moving  form. 

10.  Was  this  held  by  the  Socinians  ? 

Not  precisely : these  went  much  further.  They  denied 
the  Divinity  of  Christ  and  reduced  the  reconciliation  to  a 
moral  effect  of  Christ’s  teaching,  and  redemption  to  an  exercise 
of  a prerogative  of  mercy  committed  to  him  in  heaven. 

11.  What  does  Socinian  theology  urge  against  the  truth  ? 

(1)  That  God’s  will  must  not  be  limited  by  the  thought 
of  a necessary  atonement.  But  God  Himself  has  answered  this. 

(2)  That  substitution  is  immoral.  But  that  is  not  true, 
in  the  natural  economy  ; and,  in  the  supernatural,  substitu- 
tion is  glorified  into  mystical  fellowship  with  Christ,  our  Head. 

(3)  That  repentance  is  in  scripture  the  sufficient  ground  of 
pardon.  But  the  gospel  of  all  ages  is  based  on  an  underlying 
reconciliation,  through  which  alone  repentance  is  accepted. 

12.  What  are  our  safeguards  ? 

(i)  There  is  no  sound  doctrine  that  does  not  measure  the 
evil  of  sin  by  the  infinite  value  of  the  Son  of  God. 

{2)  The  qualifying  theories  which  make  the  atonement 
only  an  exhibition  of  selfsacrifice  in  Christ,  and  of  rectoral 
justice  in  God,  are  perfectly  sound  only  when  they  rest  upon 
the  deeper  foundation  of  an  eternal  necessity  of  atonement. 

(3)  The  precise  connection  between  Christ’s  offering  and 
the  expiation  of  sin  is  beyond  the  limits  of  human  reason : 
reserved  for  the  trust  of  faith* 

2 Cor.  ii.  16.  (4)  The  provision  of  the  atonement  is  finally  the 

Heb.  X.  30.  test  of  every  man’s  probation. 


BOOK  VI 


The  Application  of  Redemption. 


I.  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  AS  ADMINISTRATOR. 

II.  THE  CALL  OF  THE  GOSPEL. 

III.  PREVENIENT  GRACE  AND  CONDITIONS  OF 

SALVATION. 

IV.  THE  ESTATE  OF  GRACE. 

V.  THE  PROBATION  OF  THE  GOSPEL. 

VI.  THE  ETHICS  OF  REDEMPTION. 

VII.  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 


The  Holy  Spirit. 


195 


BOOK  VI. 


Spirit’s  Jl6mitttsfi'aIiott  of  t^e 
§I)t'isfitttt  ^oocnattf. 

PreUmmarp. 

1.  What  is  signified  by  this  general  title? 

That  we  now  pass  from  the  finished  work  of  Christ  to 
its  application  by  the  Holy  Ghost  through  the  Gospel. 

2.  In  what  other  terms  might  this  be  expressed  ? 

Sometimes  the  whole  doctrine  of  human  salvation  is 
called  Soteriology  : objective,  as  including  what  Christ  has 
accomplished  once  for  all  ; subjective,  as  including  the  means 
and  measures  of  its  personal  appropriation. 

3.  Point  out  the  propriety  of  the  phrase  here  used. 

It  has  been  seen  that  the  Divine  purpose  of  redemption 
was  gradually  accomplished  in  the  establishment  of  a covenant 
of  which  Jesus  Christ  was  the  mediator.  Having  ratified  that 
covenant  with  His  blood,  the  Redeemer  commits  it  to  the 
Holy  Spirit  that  He  may  carry  out  all  its  provisions  according 
to  the  will  of  its  Divine  author. 

4.  How  may  this  whole  subject  be  distributed? 

(1)  The  Holy  Spirit  in  His  agency  as  administrator. 

(2)  His  proclamation  to  the  world,  or  call  in  the  Gospel. 

(3)  Prevenient  grace  and  the  conditions  of  personal  salva- 
tion : conversion,  repentance,  faith. 

(4)  The  blessings  of  the  Christian  covenant  in  the  estate 
of  grace  : righteousness,  sonship,  sanctification. 

(5)  The  probationary  character  of  the  Christian  covenant. 

(6)  The  ethics  of  the  Gospel  of  redemption. 

(7)  The  Christian  Church  as  the  sphere  of  the  SpiriPs 
administration. 

9* 


iq6 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


Chapter  I. 

Spirit  as  Jl^ininisfrafor. 

1.  What  have  we  already  learnt  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit? 

That  He  is  a Divine  person  consubstantial  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son  ; that,  like  the  Son,  He  was  an  agent  in 
creation,  and  is  ever-active  in  the  providential  government  of 
the  world  ; that  He  has  been  specially  connected  with  the 
history  of  redemption,  as  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  the  prophets, 
as  the  author  and  finisher  of  our  Lord’s  human  nature,  and  as 
the  unction  descending  upon  the  Redeemer  that  it  might  flow 
from  Him  to  His  people. 

2.  In  what  relation  do  we  now  regard  Him  ? 

As  a person  sent  from  the  Father  through  the  intercession 
of  the  Son  to  carry  on  His  work  to  the  end  of  time. 

§ 1.  ^Temporal  ilHtsston. 

1.  What  term  do  we  use  for  this  agency  of  the  Spirit? 

It  is  His  temporal  mission  as  distinguished  from  His 
eternal  procession  : just  as  we  distinguish  between  the  Son’s 
eternal  generation  and  His  incarnation  in  time.  Whom  I will 
send  unto  you.  from  the  F'dfJier  . . . Which  pro- 
John  XV.  26.  from  the  Father.  ^Ov  eyw  Trl/juj/w  irapa  Tov 

Trarpo?  . . . o Trapa  tov  irarpos  eKTropcArai.  And  of  both  the 
pronoun  Ikclvos  is  used.  He.) 

2.  When  did  the  Spirit’s  temporal  mission  begin  ? 

On  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

3.  But  have  we  not  marked  His  presence,  like  that  of  the 

Son,  in  the  Old  Testament  ? 

The  three  Divine  Persons  are  more  or  less  revealed  in  the 
ancient  economy  ; but  their  offices  are  not  clearly  and  fully 
Actsi  xiii  distinguished  until  the  last  days.  The  Son  and  the 
32, 33.’  Spirit  were  alike  in  the  Old  Testament  the  promise 

Gal.  m 14.  lirayy^Xiav  in  both)  ; and  are  alike  in  the  New 


The  Holy  Spirit, 


197 


sent  as  fulfilment  of  the  promise.  When  the  fulness  of  the 
time  came  God  sent  forth  His  Son  . . . and  because  ^ 

ye  are  sons  God  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  His  Son  ^ 
into  our  hearts  (efaTreo-TetW  in  both).  Of  the  Son  : God  hath 
fulfilled  the  same  . . . ui  that  He  raised  up  Jestts,  Actsxiii.33. 
Of  the  Spirit:  Having  received  of  the  Father  the  Acts ii. 33- 
promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost^  He  hath  shed  forth  this, 

4.  Is  not  the  Holy  Spirit  spoken  of  throughout  the  Gospels  ? 

(1)  In  relation  to  the  person  of  Christ  He  is  already 
come  : whatever  our  Lord  is  or  does  as  the  representative  of 
man  He  is  and  does  as  under  the  Spirit  ; while  whatever  He 
is  and  does  as  the  representative  of  God  He  is  and  does  as  the 
Eternal  Son.  In  the  Gospels  the  Spirit  is  the  Spirit  of  Jesus. 

(2)  But  as  to  the  administration  of  the  finished  work  the 
Spirit  is  always  spoken  of  as  yet  to  come.  Of  all  the  sayings  of 
Jesus  concerning  Him  St.  John’s  words  hold  good  : This  spake 
He  of  the  Spirit,^  which  they  that  believed  on  Him 

were  to  receive:  for  the  Spirit  was  not  yet  given;  "vn. 39. 
because  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified.  As  the  great  gift  of 
heaven  He  was  not  yet. 


6.  Why  was  the  Spirit’s  coming  dependent  on  the  Lord’s 
glorification  ? 

(1)  Because  the  disclosure  of  the  Third  Person  of  the 
Holy  Trinity,  as  perfecting  the  revelation  of  the 
Triune  God,  had  then  its  set  time:  When  the  day  of 
Pentecost  was  now  come.  The  Godhead  was  made  known  in 
the  work  of  Christ. 

(2)  Because  the  glorification  of  Christ  was  His  death — 
Now  is  the  Son  of  Ma7t  glo^Hfied — and  the  death 

of  Christ  must  finish  His  work  before  that  work 

could  be  revealed  in  its  full  significance  and  applied  to  the 

world  by  the  Spirit. 

(3)  Because  the  glorification  of  Christ  in  heaven  began 

the  intercession,  of  which  the  firstfruits  was  the 
mission  of  the  Comforter:  It  is  expedient  for  you  7. 

that  I go  away : if  I go  I will  send  Him  unto  you, 

(4)  Because,  in  fact,  the  glorification  of  Jesus,  or  the  reve- 
lation of  His  true  character  and  glory,  was  to  be  the 
work  of  the  Spirit  : He  shall  glorify  Me, 


John  xvi.  14. 


Ig8 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


§ 2.  IBtspensation  of  tje  Spfnt. 

1.  In  what  sense,  if  any,  is  the  new  covenant  a dispensation 

of  the  Spirit  ? 

The  term  used  by  St.  Paul  is  ministration  of  the  Spirit 
(Sta/corta,  not  oLKovo^ia).  It  is  not  that  the  Spirit  ministers 
^ ...  „ but  that  He  is  ministered.  We  are  not  to  understand 

by  this  phrase  that  the  new  covenant  is  an  economy 
only  under  the  rule  of  the  Spirit : there  is  no  separate  dis- 
pensation of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
respectively. 

2.  In  what  sense  is  it  a ministration  of  the  Spirit  ? 

As  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel  is  the  medium  of  the 
Spirit^s  operation : giving  the  h/e  of  the  Spirit  in  contrast 
2 Cor.  iii.  6,  with  the  Condemnation  and  death  of  the  law  ; the 
9.  7-  law  being  a body  of  statutes  written  and  engraven 
071  stones^  which  statutes  fallen  human  nature  could  not  keep. 

3.  Is  then  the  Spirit  both  the  Giver  and  the  Gift  in  the 

dispensation  of  the  Gospel  ? 

He  is,  like  the  Son,  in  His  Divine  dignity  supreme,  and 
gives:  All  these  worketh  the  one  andthe  sa7ue  Spirit^  dividmg  to 
iCor.xii.ii,  one  severally  even  as  He  will.  And,  like  the 

7-  Son,  in  the  economy  of  grace  He  is  subordinate,  and 

is  given : But  to  each  one  is  given  the  manifest atiori  of  the 
Spvdt  to  profit  withal, 

4.  May  the  Spirit  be  termed  the  head  of  the  Christian  dis- 

pensation during  Christ’s  absence  ? 

Christ  is  never  absent : I am  with  yon  alway  is  as  deter- 
Matt.  xxviii.  Hiinate  If  I go  not  away  and  Whom  the  heaven 
^ 20.  must  receive.  But  the  Spirit  is  the  agent  of  His 

John  XVI.  7.  • j n • 

Acts  iii.  21.  indwelling  power. 

6.  Is  He  not  the  representative  of  Christ  as  absent  in  His 
human  nature  and  as  present  in  His  Divine  nature  ? 

The  distinction  is  never  made  in  the  New  Testament : 
in  this  sense  also  Christ  is  not  divided.  We  may  say,  how- 
ever, that  the  Redeemer's  functions  on  earth  are  discharged 
by  the  Spirit,  and  His  functions  in  heaven  by  Himself. 


The  Holy  Spirit. 


igg 


§ 3.  Spirit  as  liepresentatiPe  of  Jesus. 

1.  Does  not  then  the  Saviour  promise  the  Spirit  as  His 

own  deputy  ? 

Not  in  express  terms  ; He  calls  Him,  however,  Another 
Paraclete^  as  if  the  Spirit’s  agency  was  to  be  additional 
to  His  own  ; but  not  His  vicar  or  deputy,  for  He  adds  John  xiv.  is*. 
I will  come  unto  you,  St.  Paul  makes  the  Lord  and 
the  Spirit  one  in  presence  and  operation  : Now  the 
Lord  is  the  Spirit,  in  the  same  sense  as  I and  the  Father 
are  one. 

2.  How  then  is  the  Spirit  the  Lord’s  representative  ? 

He  reveals  generally  His  person  and  work,  as  the  Spirit  of 
the  truth.,  of  the  truth  as  tridh  is  in  Jesus  ; by  His  ^iv.  17 
virtue  the  Saviour  is  an  internal  presence  to  the  Eph.  iv.  21. 
believer ; and  He  pleads  Christ’s  cause,  as  His  Paraclete, 
against  the  world  or  before  it. 

3.  As  to  the  first : Are  the  revelation  of  the  person  and 

that  of  the  work  one  ? 

There  is  now  little  distinction  : our  Lord  said,  He  shall 
glorify  Me ; for  He  shall  take  of  Mine^  and  shall  xvi.  14 
declare  it  unto  you.  Hereafter  He  will  reveal  His  ^ “i-  2; 

person  alone  : as  He  is. 

4.  How  is  the  Spirit  the  revealer  of  Christ’s  person  ? 

By  giving  faith  the  conviction  or  evidence  that  the  Son  of 
man  is  the  Son  of  God  with  glory.  No  man  can 
say^  Jesus  is  Lord.,  but  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  ^ 

6.  How  does  He  reveal  His  work? 

(1)  By  unfolding  through  the  apostles  the  full  import  of 
the  redeeming  offices.  He  shall  guide  you  into  all 

the  truth.  John  xvi.  13. 

(2)  By  revealing  to  the  believer  the  meaning  of  His 
words,  the  virtue  of  His  sacrifice,  and  the  power  of 

His  grace  in  the  heart.  It  is  the  Spirit  that  bear eth 
witness. 

(3)  By  being  the  internal  seal  or  assurance  of  personal 
faith  : ye  were  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of 
promise. 


200 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


6.  By  this  inward  assurance  alone  does  the  Spirit  represent 

Jesns  internally  ? 

No : in  the  mystery  of  His  indwelling  He  makes  the 
personal  Redeemer  an  indwelling  presence : the  new  life  of  the 
Rom.  viii.  2.  soul.  Compare  the  two  passages:  The  Spirit  of 
I John  V.  12.  life  in  Christ  Jesus  and  He  that  hath  the  Son  hath 
the  life. 

7.  How  does  He  represent  Christ  to  the  world? 

It  is  His  office  to  convict  the  world  in  respect  of  sin.,  and  op 
righteousness.,  and  of  judgment.  But  in  each  of  these  He 
johnxvi.8—  pleads  the  cause  of  Christ,  Who  through  Him  pleads 
II*  His  own  cause.  Of  sin.,  because  they  believe  not  on 

Me:  sin  is  now  the  rejection  of  Jesus.  Of  righteousness.,  because 
I go  to  the  Father  : the  righteousness  of  the  crucified  and  risen 
Redeemer  is  the  only  ground  of  human  hope  for  righteousness. 
Of  judgment.,  because  the  prince  of  this  world  hath  been  judged  : 
the  Lord  through  the  Spirit  demands  His  own  and  draws  all 
men  from  Satan  to  Himself. 

§ 4.  Spirit  as  person  anij  as  influence. 

1.  Is  the  distinction  between  the  Spirit’s  person  and  in- 

flnence  always  plain  ? 

Not  alwa}^s.  It  is  clear  when  His  influences  are  expressed 
in  the  language  of  symbols  and  figures,  such  as  those  of  fire, 
water,  anointing,  sealing  ; but  sometimes  His  operations  are 
meant  when  the  term  Spirit  is  used  alone. 

2.  How  is  the  Divine  personality  of  the  Spirit  indisputably 

expressed  in  New  Testament  phraseology? 

Rom.  viii.  9.  In  those  passages  which  speak  of  Him  as  the  Spirit 
I PetYii.  of  God.,  or  of  His  Son^  or  of  the  Christ ; in  those  also 
term  Him  the  Holy  Spirit.,  or  the  Spirit,  em- 
Acts  ii.*4.  ’ phatically  with  the  article. 

3.  Is  TTvevfia  or  TTvevfjLa  ayiov  ever  used  of  the  influences  of 

the  Spirit  only? 

Of  His  influences,  certainly  ; but  never  without  implying 
His  presence  as  the  source  of  them  in  the  heart.  We  cannot 
sever  spiritual  gifts  from  the  Spirit.  As  he  that  hath  the  Son 
hath  the  life,  so  he  that  hath  the  Spirit  hath  His  spiritual 


The  Holy  Spirit. 


201 


influences.  Mark  the  blending  of  the  two  : They  were  all  filled 
with  the  Holy  Spirit^  and  began  to  speak  with  other  .. 
tongues^  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance.  Here  we 
must  think  of  the  same  Person  in  both  parts  of  the  verse. 

4.  How  far  does  the  presence  or  absence  of  the  Greek  article 
decide  the  question  of  His  personality? 

Not  invariably  ; for  the  ^erm  Holy  Spirit  as  a proper 
name  became  independent  of  the  article.  As  there  are  ad- 
jectives which  maybe  used  whenever  the  person  is  not  included 
— as  in  comparing  spiritual  things  with  spiritual — 
we  do  well  to  connect  the  person  with  His  influence  Eph/v.’is!^* 
in  such  passages  as  be  filled  with  the  Spirit,,  where 
the  person  is  included. 

6.  What  bearing  has  this  on  the  various  offices  of  the 
Spirit  in  administering  the  Gospel? 

It  gives  reality  and  vividness  to  our  views  of  His  work — 
as  that  of  a person  one  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  and 
yet  distinct  from  Both — in  the  whole  economy  of  redemption. 
This  will  appear  under  the  several  heads  of  that  work. 

6.  Which  is  the  most  prominent  official  name  of  the  Spirit  ? 

That  of  the  Paraclete,,  TrapctK-X'^ro?,  which  is  literally  Adve- 
catus,  Advocate  or  Helper,  specially  within  the  heart. 

This  is  Comforter  in  the  ancient  sense  of  Strengthener. 

7.  What  is  the  peculiarity  of  this  name  ? 

It  connects  the  offices  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Spirit  in  a 
very  impressive  way.  (i)  Our  Lord  had  described  Him- 
self as  a representative  of  the  Father  and  an  intercessor 
with  Him  on  behalf  of  His  people  ; when  about  to  depart  He 
promises  A/zother  Comforter  or  Paraclete.  (2)  He  Himself 
is  our  Advocate  with  the  Father  or  Paraclete.  (3)  johnxiv.  16. 
The  Spirit  is  an  intercessor  within  the  hearts  of  the  ijohnii.  i. 
saints.  (4)  Thus  the  voice  of  the  Advocate  or  Pleader  within 
the  veil  of  the  spirit  answers  to  the  voice  of  the  Advocate 
or  Pleader  within  the  veil  of  heaven  ; He  maketh 
intercession  within  us  and  thus  helpeth  otzr  infirmity,  27, 26. 

8.  What  is  said  of  the  manifestation  of  the  Spirit? 

That  each  of  His  gifts  is,  as  a c^avepwo-t^,  spiritual  proof  of 
His  indwelling  : God  manifest  in  the  spirit. 


202 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


Chapter  II. 

■iJocalion,  or  falling  of  t^e  Spirit 

1.  "What  is  to  he  understood  hy  this  phrase  ? 

The  whole  work  of  the  Spirit  as  making  known  to  man 
the  common  redemption  and  offering  to  him  its  blessings. 

2.  How  may  we  distribute  the  subject? 

We  may  consider  the  call  as  universal  and  indirect  ; then 
as  historical  in  revelation  before  Christ ; and  finally  as  perfect 
in  the  proclamation  and  offer  of  the  Gospel. 

§ 1.  ^t)e  ant  Jntirect  ©all. 

1.  May  the  call,  like  redemption,  be  regarded  as  universal  ? 

We  are  bound  by  every  principle  to  believe  that  in  some 
way — whether  known  to  us  or  not — all  who  fell  in  the  first 
Adam  shall  know  that  in  the  Second  Adam  a Saviour  has 
been  provided  for  them. 

2.  In  what  ways  may  the  call  be  said  to  be  universal? 

The  Son  of  God  was  the  light  which  lighteth  every 

man  coming  into  the  world.  The  Gentiles  are  said  to  shew  the 
work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts,  God  left 
Rom  ii.^15.  ^^ot  Himself  without  witness.  In  the  beginning  the 
Genvi  s^^*  i^ystcrious  prophecy  or  threatening  was,  My  Spirit 
shall  not  always  strive  with  man  : a saying  which 
dimly  expresses  the  undoubted  truth  of  a universal  visitation 
or  restraint  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  Finally,  the  broken  traditions 
Rom.x.  18.  of  primitive  revelation  were  a sound  that  went  itito  all 
Actsxvii.27.  the  earthy  various  echoes  of  the  Divine  voice  calling 
the  nations  to  seek  God,  if  haply  they  might  feel  after  Him 
and find  Him.^  though  He  is  710 1 far  from  each  one  of  us. 


Calling  of  the  Spirit. 


203 


§ 2.  2Ti)e  ?b.istorual  ©all  liefore  ©Ijmt. 

1.  What  is  our  fundamental  principle  here? 

The  revelation  of  the  Divine  purpose  was  gradual,  through 
special  lines  of  descent  and  a particular  people.  The  direct 
call  may  be  regarded  as  running  parallel  with  this.  Both 
the  purpose  and  the  gradual  revelation  of  it  are  called  a 
mystery. 

2.  Then  the  election  preceded  the  call? 

Assuredly  ; for  God  chose  out  both  men  and  people  first, 
and  then  called  them.  In  the  Gospel  it  is  otherwise  : n>en  are 
called  first,  and  then  elected. 

3.  Were  the  leading  historical  calls  independent  of  cha- 

racter ? 

By  no  means  : witness  the  earliest  instances  of  Cain  and 
Abel ; the  sons  of  Noah  ; Abraham  and  Jacob,  and  others, 
who  were  or  became  true  servants  of  God. 

4.  What  is  the  specific  difference  between  the  Old-Testa- 

ment call  and  that  of  the  New? 

The  ancient  call  was  chiefly  that  of  a nation  or  people, 
the  calling  of  individuals  being  subordinate  ; the  Gospel 
call  is  mainly  that  of  the  individual,  the  national  being 
subordinate. 

5.  What  is  the  peculiar  importance  of  the  call  of  Abraham  ? 

It  was  the  great  crisis  in  history ; which  determined  the 
course  of  historical  revelation  to  a special  race,  and  at  the 
same  time  prophesied  a future  and  universal  call. 

6.  Were  the  nations  outside  of  the  first  covenant  altogether 

abandoned  ? 

Only  as  to  outward  revelation.  There  is  a gradually 
strengthening  prediction  of  the  future  call  of  the  Gentiles, 
ending  with  My  name  shall  be  great  among  the 
nations.  Meanwhile,  as  St.  Paul  afterwards  says,  God  Acts  xiv.’i6, 
suffered  all  the  nations  to  walk  in  their  own  ways, 

Into  this  mystery  we  cannot  penetrate : but  He  left  not 
Himself  without  witness. 


204 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


§ 3.  Sf)e  CKospel  ©all* 

1.  Wliat  is  the  Gospel  Call  proper,  as  commencing  with  the 
personal  ministry  of  Jesus? 

It  may  be  regarded  as  threefold  : the  proclamation  of  the 
glad  tidings  ; the  command  to  submit  to  Christ  as  Lord  ; and 
the  offer  of  personal  salvation  through  Him. 

2.  How  does  the  first  appear  in  the  New  Testament? 

In  a variety  of  ways.  First  came  the  proclaiming 
Matt,  iii.2.  (Krjpvaa€Lv)  the  kingdom  of  heaven  or  the  Gospel  of 
Ma^kri^^’  kmgdom^  with  the  command  to  repent  and 
Actsviii.25.  believe  in  the  Gospel ; then  preaching  the  Gospel 
Acisv.^42'!*  or  the  Word  or  Jesits  ; and,  finally,  the  ministry  of 
2 Cor.  V.  18.  fjie  reconciliation, 

3.  What  are  the  uses  of  the  word  Gospel? 

The  word  (euayycXtov)  means  in  the  New  Testament  a joyful 
announcement  or  good  tidings  generally  : the  Gospel  in  many 
Acts  XV  relations,  of  God.,  of  Christ.^  of  our  salvation.,  of  the 
Rom.  XV.  16.  grace  of  God,  The  verb  evangelise  {^vayweXi^eLv)  is 
Eph.’i.’lt  ^sed  for  the  preaching  of  those  tidings.  The  word 
been  thought  to  be  once  used  for  the  narrative 
of  our  Lord’s  history  as  the  Author  of  salvation  : the 
beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  Certainly  it  was 
afterwards  used  with  this  meaning  ; and  thus  this  one  word 
has  become  the  most  central  and  the  most  important  title  of 
the  whole  mission  and  work  of  the  Redeemer. 

4.  Is  submission  to  Christ  part  of  the  Gospel  message? 

An  essential  part  : He  is  the  Author  of  eternal  salvation 
to  all  them  that  obey  Him,  Repentance  toward  God  includes, 
Heb  V ’'vhen  the  way  of  salvation  is  declared,  the  humble 
^ acknowledgment  of  Christ’s  mediatorial  authority. 

6.  What  is  the  offer  of  personal  salvation  ? 

The  promise  of  acceptance  to  all  who  believe  ; the  com- 
mendation of  Christ  as  an  all-sufficient  Saviour  ; the  exhorta- 
tion to  receive  Him,  enforced  by  many  arguments  ; and, 
finally,  the  present  offer  of  Divine  grace  to  assist  both  the 
repentance  and  the  faith. 


Calling  of  the  Spirit. 


205 


6.  Are  all  these  necessary  to  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel? 

Many  of  the  details  will  be  filled  up  in  the  teaching  that 
follows  when  preaching  has  done  its  work.  But  no  one 
of  these  main  characteristics  can  be  omitted  in  a sound 
evangelical  ministry.  All  are  included  in  apostolical 
preaching. 

7.  To  whom  is  this  important  office  committed? 

To  the  Christian  company  universally,  but  specially  to 
men  set  apart  for  that  purpose.  Go  ye  therefore  Matt,  xxviii. 
and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations.  They  went  Ac\s‘viii.4. 
about  preaching  the  word.  Hoiv  shall  they  preachy  Rom.  x.  15. 
except  they  be  se?it  ? 

8.  Is  the  call  of  the  Gospel  effectual? 

It  is  effectual  in  the  purpose  of  God  : that  is,  He  who 
sends  it  willeth  that  all  men  should  be  saved.,  and 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  It  is  actually  ^ 
effectual  also,  inasmuch  as  the  grace  accompanying  it  impresses 
every  hearer  and  gives  every  man  the  power  to  obey.  ^ ^ 
But  it  may  be  resisted  : Ye  will  not  come  unto  Me  ! Acts^^i.'^5i 
Ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost  / 


9.  But  are  there  not  reprobate  sinners  foredoomed  to  be 
called  in  vain  ? 

The  reprobate,  dSoKt/xot,  are  those,  and  those  only,  who 
did  not  like  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge ; 
who  resist  the  truth ; and  who  have  lost  the  in-  2Trm!m.’8. 
dwelling  Lord:  Know  ye  not  as  to  your  own  selves 
that  fesus  Christ  is  in  you  f except  ye  be  reprobate.  The  word 
implies  failure  under  test. 


10.  Is  it  not  said  that  in  Antioch  they  believed  who  were 
ordained  to  eternal  life  ? 


Compare  with  this  : Seeing  ye  thrust  it  from  you^  and 
'judge  yourselves  unworthy  of  eternal  life.,  lo^  we 
turn  to  the  Gentiles.  After  the  wilful  refusal  and 
rejection  of  the  Jews,  those  among  the  Gentiles  are  referred 
to  who  reray/xeVot  were  rightly  ordered  for.  or 

disposed  to.,  eternal  life. 


2o6 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


11.  Are  not  true  Christians  the  Called,  implying  that  their 

call  was  necessarily  effectual? 

Three  terms  are  used,  each  of  which  is  adopted  to  de- 
scribe generally  the  Christian  estate  : the  Called,  kXtjtol  ; the 
Chosen  or  Elect,  ^kX^ktol  ; and  the  Faithful,  ttlo-toL  But  when 
they  are  connected  they  explain  and  limit  each  other  : the 
Matt  xxii  have  yielded  to  the  call,  for  many  are  called^ 

14.*  hut  few  chosen ; and  of  those  elect  only  such  as 
Revxvii°i  P^^^e  faithful  unto  death  are  saved.  Those  who 
finally  overcome  with  the  Lamb  are  the  called  and 
chosen  and  faithful, 

12.  Is  there  any  distinction  between  a merely  outward  call 

and  an  effectual  internal  call  ? 

There  is  none  in  Scripture  ; but  there  is  undoubtedly  a 
secret  voice  of  the  Spirit  which  speaks  inwardly  what  is 
outwardly  heard.  Both  calls,  however,  may  be  resisted. 

13.  What  is  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  on  this  subject  in  his 

Three  Chapters  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans? 

They  deal  with  the  Jews,  who  perverted  the  truth  of  their 
ancient  national  election  : refusing  to  believe  that  any  of  their 
nation  could  be  cut  off,  and  that  the  Gentiles  should  enter  into 
their  privileges.  Hence  : 

(i.)  In  the  central  chapter  of  the  three,  the  tenth,  it  is 
shown  that  in  the  Gospel  there  is  no  distinction  between  Jew 
Rom.x.  12.  and  Greek  : for  the  same  Lord  is  Lord  of  all. 

(2.)  In  the  ninth  the  leading  thought  is  that  a national 
election  is  one  thing,  the  election  of  individuals  another  : 
Rom.  ix.  8 children  of  the  promise  are  reckoned  for  a seed. 

22,  24.  Both  in  judgment  and  in-  mercy  God  is  righteous  : 
the  former  He  exercises  after  much  longsuffering ; and  the 
latter  He  abundantly  shewed  in  that  He  called^  not  from  the 
Jews  only.,  but  also  from  the  Gentiles.,  individuals  who  should 
receive  His  salvation. 

(3.)  In  the  eleventh  it  is  seen  that  national  election  is 
lost  in  individual.  God  hath  shut  up  all  unto  disobedience.,  that 
Rom.  xi.  32,  might  have  mercy  upon  all.  All  Israel  shall  be 
26.  saved  : all  the  true  Israel,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles. 


Conditions  of  Salvation. 


207 


Chapter  TIL 

■^reuctticnt  ^racc  an6  §ott6iHons  of  galoafton. 

1.  What  subjects  are  included  under  this  head? 

All  that  belongs  to  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  helping  man 
to  prepare  himself  for  full  acceptance  in  Christ  or  personal 
salvation  : as  it  were  in  the  outer  court  of  the  temple. 

2.  Are  not  these  preparations  the  work  of  the  Spirit  alone  ? 

The  beginnings  of  grace  are  before  any  human  will  to 
good  ; but  human  co-operation  must  accompany  every  stage  of 
this  process. 

3.  Is  man's  co-operation  with  grace  more  marked  in  this 

process  than  afterwards? 

(i)  When  the  blessings  of  salvation  are  imparted,  those 
who  receive  them,  are  perfectly  passive  : justification,  regene- 
ration, sanctification  are  acts  administered  by  the  Spirit  alone. 

(2)  In  the  state  of  salvation,  the  believer  must  co-work  with 
grace  in  order  to  retain  his  privilege  and  reach  its  perfection. 

(3)  But  the  difference  is  this,  that  in  the  work  of  preparation 
the  man  still  has  a self  and  may  co-operate,  while  in  the  re- 
generate estate  his  life  is  the  life  of  Christ  within  him,  and  the 
term  co-operate  is  not  used  with  the  same  propriety. 

4.  What  is  the  theological  order  in  this  department  ? 

We  have  prevenient  grace  and  its  relation  to  free  will  ; 
and  then  the  conditions  or  terms  of  salvation  as  complied  with 
through  that  grace. 


§ 1.  ^prebeni'ent  6frace. 

1.  What  name  connects  the  Holy  Ghost  with  this  subject? 

He  is  called  the  Spirit  of  grace^  even  as  He  is  the 
Spu'it  of  the  truth.  These  two  appellations  strictly  Heb.  x.  29. 
harmonise.  John  xvi.  13. 


2o8 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


2.  What  is  grace  prevenient  ? 

The  effect  of  God’s  favour  towards  undeserving  and 
helpless  man  : (i)  as  anticipating  or  going  before  man’s  own 
desire  for  it  ; and  (2)  as  preceding  and  preparing  for  the  fuller 
manifestation  of  grace  in  pardon  and  the  new  life. 

3.  Where  is  the  final  ground  of  this  grace  to  he  sought? 

In  the  virtue  of  the  universal  atonement  securing  a 
measure  of  the  Spirit’s  influence  to  every  child  of  Adam. 

4.  How  may  this  he  said  to  operate? 

(i)  As  to  the  object  on  whom  it  is  exerted,  it  is  restraint 
upon  inherited  bias  to  evil  and  secret  prompting  towards 
John  vi.  44.  good.  (2)  As  to  the  operation  itself,  it  is  the 
Actsvii.  51.  drawing  of  the  obedient  and  the  striving  with  the 
disobedient.  (3)  As  to  the  means  used,  it  is  generally  the 
effectual  working  of  the  truth  through  //te  demon- 
iCor.  U.4.  miration  of  the  Spirit. 

5.  Are  these  influences  to  he  regarded  as  directing  the 

several  faculties  of  man  ? 

The  grace  itself  is  strictl}^  speaking  bestowed  on  the 
sinner  behind  these  faculties  : it  is  prevenient  and  therefore  ac- 
companies the  first  exercises  of  man’s  mind  and  heart  and  will. 

6.  Does  the  appeal  of  the  word  find  as  well  as  bring  this 

grace  ? 

It  finds  it  waiting  in  the  roots  of  the  nature  ; and  is 
also  ready  to  move  upon  the  will  through  the  feelings  which 
are  excited  by  the  truths  applied  to  the  understanding. 

§ 2.  anU  jrteebjill. 

1,  Do  Divine  grace  and  the  human  will  co-operate? 

In  whatever  sense  there  may  be  co-operation  it  is  between 
the  Spirit  and  the  sinner  under  His  influence. 

2.  Then  in  this  co-operation  grace  has  the  pre-eminence? 

Otherwise  it  would  not  be  prevenient.  It  has  already 
in  the  mystery  of  nature,  as  redeemed,  set  the  sinner  free 
from  any  such  slavery  to  sin  as  would  render  the  Divine  call 
useless. 


Conditions  of  Salvation. 


209 


3.  Explain  further  this  freedom  and  this  slavery. 

The  will  is  necessarily  free,  by  the  very  term  ; and  con- 
sciousness asserts  this.  The  theological  meaning  of  bondage 
is  that  the  unrenewed  man  has  no  power  as  yet  to  do 
what  he  wills.  Hence  the  man  who  has  the  free  will  is 
bound. 

4.  How  does  St.  Paul  mourn  over  his  slavery? 

His  mourning  shows  the  effect  of  prevenient  grace  ; and 
has  in  it  the  anticipation  of  coming  deliverance. 

6.  How  does  Holy  Scripture  solve  the  difficulty  of  recon- 
ciling Divine  grace  and  human  freedom  ? 

By  always  regarding  the  inward  man.,  tov  eo-o)  av0p(jD7rov, 
as  under  grace,  and  by  appealing  to  a certain  secret 
influence  of  the  Spirit  already  present.  Thus  the 
voice  without  penetrates  to  the  ear  of  that  inner  man  to  which 
a preliminary  Ephphatha  has  been  already  spoken. 

6.  Is  any  difficulty  acknowledged  in  Scripture  ? 

No : its  watchword  is,  both  after  and  before  regeneration, 
It  is  God  which  workeih  in  vote,  both  to  will  and  to 

' pvii'i  a 


§ 3.  ©f.nUittotts  of  SaUjati'on. 

1.  What  is  meant  by  the  conditions  or  terms  of  salvation  ? 

What  God  requires  in  the  man  whom  He  accepts  for 
Christ’s  sake,  and  on  whom  He  freely  bestows  the  blessings  of 
the  Gospel  of  grace. 

2.  How  may  we  reconcile  ‘‘What  God  requires”  with 

“Freely  bestows”  and  “For  Christ’s  sake”? 

By  remembering  : (i)  that  nothing  brought  or  done  by 
man  can  have  any  merit  ; (2)  that  the  terms  are  so  ordered  as 
to  demand  only  the  removal  of  what  would  hinder  his  re- 
ceiving blessings  already  provided  ; and  (3)  that  the  conditions 
themselves  include  the  use  of  a Divine  grace  enabling  the 
sinner  to  comply  with  them. 


210 


The  Spirifs  Administration. 


3.  What,  then,  are  these  necessary  conditions? 

They  are  laid  down  in  many  ways  ; but  are  all  briefly 
comprehended  in  one  saying : Repentance  toward  Gody  and 
Acts  XX.  21.  faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 

4.  Are  repentance  and  faith  equally  necessary  ? 

They  are  both  necessary  conditions  ; but  not  in  the  same 
sense  necessary. 

6.  What  is  the  difference  between  them  ? 

They  may  be  united  as  one  condition  ; but,  as  separated, 
faith  is  the  instrument  or  means  by  which  we  receive  salva- 
tion, which  repentance  is  not. 

6.  But  does  not  repentance  embrace  the  mercy  of  the  Gospel  ? 

It  thinks  only  of  sin  ; its  guilt,  its  misery,  and  its  danger. 

7.  Does  not  Scripture  sometimes  speak  of  repentance  and 

amendment  as  all  that  God  requires  ? 

Yes  ; but  it  always  implies  trust  in  the  promises  of  Divine 
mercy  ; which  promises  and  which  trust  from  the  beginning 
of  the  Bible  to  the  end  are  based  on  the  covenant  of  grace  in 
Christ. 

8.  Was  not  the  publican  accepted  when  he  said  “God  be 

merciful  to  me  a sinner  ? and  the  prodigal  when  he 
returned  to  his  father  ? 

It  must  be  remembered  that,  in  the  same  Gospel  which 
records  these  parables,  our  Lord  says,  This  cup  is  the  new 
Lukexxii  20  oovenaiit  in  My  bloody  which  is  shed  for  you.  The 
Luke  xviii.*  publican,  moreover,  cried  : God  he  propitiated  to  me 

(IXdcrOrjTL  fiot)  a sinner:  using,  near  the  altar,  the 
language  of  atoning  sacrifice.  The  Gospels,  and  the  entire 
Scripture,  must  be  read  in  the  presence  of  the  cross  : the  one 
atonement  underlies  all. 

9.  How  is  faith  the  special  means  or  instrument  of  sal- 

vation ? 

Because  the  believer  penitently  accepts  Christ  as  offered 
in  the  Gospel  ; claims  his  interest  in  His  sacrifice  and  inter- 
cession ; and  receives  the  grace  of  His  Spirit. 


Conditions  of  Salvation. 


2II 


10.  Can  there  be  such  faith  without  repentance  ? 

Only  the  penitent  feels  the  need  of  a Saviour  and  desires 
the  salvation  of  his  soul. 

11.  But  does  not  the  Saviour  speak  of  other  conditions? 

Yes  : Except  ye  be  converted^  and  become  as  little  children^ 

ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  If  any 
man  would  come  after  Me^  let  him  deny  himself^  and  3 ; xvi.  24’ 
take  up  his  cross  ^ and  follow  Me,  He  that  believeth  Markxvi.16. 
and  is  baptised  shall  be  saved.  All  these  are  our  Lord’s  terms 
of  discipleship. 

12.  How,  then,  are  repentance  and  faith  the  sole  conditions  ? 

Those  others  are  really  variations  of  the  same  two.  Con- 
version is  turning  from  sin  in  repentance  and  to  God  in  faith. 
Self-renunciation  and  taking  up  the  cross  and  following  Christ 
are  of  the  very  essence  of  repentance  and  faith  viewed  in  their 
relation  to  the  Lord  as  a Master.  And  baptism  is  the  outward 
and  visible  sign  of  separation  from  sin  and  belief  of  the  Gospel: 
an  economical  and  ordained  condition,  not  in  itself  essential. 

13.  What  errors  have  we  here  to  avoid  ? 

Two,  in  opposite  directions,  (i)  We  must  be  careful  not 
to  import  the  thought  of  merit  into  the  sacrifice  of  repentance 
which  God  absolutely  demands.  The  mediaeval  divines  in- 
vented a lower  kind  of  merit — not  a ‘‘merit  of  worthiness,” 
but  a “ merit  of  congruity  ” — which  was  supposed  to  recom- 
mend the  works  of  contrition  to  God.  But  the  supreme 
condition  is  that  we  come  to  receive  unmerited  grace.  (2)  We 
must  be  equally  on  our  guard  against  tampering  with  the 
strict  idea  of  condition  : there  is  no  absolutely  unconditional 
freeness  in  the  Gospel  ; and  the  faith  which  sinners  are  some- 
times called  to  exercise  without  a true  and  deep  repentance  is 
not  that  which  the  Spirit  acknowledges.  Faith 
apart  from  works  is*  dead : whether  in  the  outer 
court  of  preliminary  grace  or  in  the  sanctuary  of  the  re- 
generate life.  Accordingly,  it  should  be  impressed  upon  all 
seekers  of  salvation  that  God  always  requires  the  act  or  the 
deep  purpose  of  amendment  before  He  confers  the  benefit  of 
Christ’s  atonement. 

10 


212 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


§ 4.  €:onbersi'om 

1.  What  is  the  scriptural  importance  of  this  term  ? 

It  runs  through  both  Testaments  as  denoting  the  critical 
period  of  a sinner’s  return  from  the  ways  of  sin  to  God  : the 
great  change  in  the  moral  and  religious  life. 

2.  But  does  it  not  sometimes  signify  a return  from  hack- 

sliding  ? 

In  the  old  economy  it  was  so  used  ; since  all  sin  was  in 
some  sense  apostasy  from  God  already  known.  It  is  so  used 
, , ..  also  in  respect  to  Peter’s  recovery  from  his  fall, 

32.  When  once  thou  hast  tmmed  again;  and  in  the 

jas.  V.  20.  encouragement  given  to  him  which  converteth  a 

sinner  from  the  error  of  his  way.  But  after  the  Pentecost 
it  is  generally  employed  to  signify  the  first  abandonment  of 
heathenism  and  the  service  of  Satan. 

3.  What  does  the  term  teach  as  to  man's  co-operation  ? 

The  two  notes  alwavs  are  : Turn  Thou  me^  and  I shall  he 
turned;  and  Turii  ye^  turn  ye^  from  your  evil  ways.  No  word 
Ter  xxxi  i8  Scriptui'c  SO  Consistently  represents  both  the 
Ezek.  xxxiii!  Divine  and  the  human  work  in  the  preliminaries 
of  salvation. 

4.  How  is  conversion  related  to  repentance  and  faith  ? 

The  term  stands  occasionally  for  either  or  for  both,  as  in 
the  following  passages  : Repent  ye  therefore  and  he  converted. 
Acts  iii  19  ^ g'f'eat  mtmher  that  believed  turned  unto  the  Lord. 
Acts  xi.  21.  BiU  are  noiv  returned  unto  the  Shepherd  a7id  Bishop 
I Peter  ii.  25,  of  yoUr  SOUls. 

6.  What  inexact  uses  of  the  word  are  current? 

(i)  Sometimes  it  signifies  the  entire  course  of  religion  to 
the  end.  (2)  Such  as  make  regeneration  the  Very  beginning  of 
the  spiritual  life  from  God  regard  conversion  as  the  expression 
of  that  life  on  the  part  of  man.  (3)  Those  who  hold  that 
regeneration  to  be  only  baptismal  would  keep  the  word  con- 
version for  a recovery  of  forfeited  baptismal  grace.  (4)  It  is 
very  common  to  speak  of  conversion  as  meaning  the  time 


Conditions  of  Salvation. 


2T3 


of  conscious  acceptance  with  God.  (5)  Occasionally  this 
great  word  is  employed  to  denote  a mere  change  of  religious 
opinion. 

6.  What  is  its  truer  and  better  meaning  ? 

The  process,  longer  or  shorter,  more  or  less  outwardly 
troubled,  of  the  soul’s  turning  away  from  sin  and  Satan  and 
self  to  Christ  its  Saviour.  On  entering  the  inner  court,  and 
being  united  to  Jesus,  its  conversion  may  be  said  to  be  ended. 


§ 5.  Hiepnttance. 

1.  What  is  repentance  ? 

The  conviction  of  guilt  produced  by  the  Holy  Spirit’s 
application  of  the  Divine  law  to  the  heart ; with  the  effects  of 
this  conviction  on  the  life. 

2.  By  what  terms  does  Scripture  define  it  ? 

There  are  three  leading  ones : the  first  and  most  fre- 
quently used  signifies  the  change  of  purpose  ; the  second 
expresses  sorrow  or  inward  contrition  ; and  the  third,  peculiar 
to  the  New  Testament,  introduces  the  idea  of  conviction 
or  reproof  as  being  effectual  in  the  conscience. 

3.  Illustrate  this  from  the  New  Testament. 

Inverting  the  order,  we  have  a systematic  view  of  the 
process  from  conviction  through  sorrow  to  amendment. 

(1)  And  He^  when  He  is  come^  will  convict  the  world 
in  respect  of  sin.  Here  is  the  deep  secret  of  true  John  xvi.  8. 
repentance.  Through  law  is  the  hiowledge  of  sin,  Rom.  iii.20. 

(2)  The  broken  and  contrite  heart  of  the  Old  Testament 
becomes  godly  sorrow^  Kara  ^eov  \viry].  This  stands  for  pg;  \i  17. 
all  its  internal  emotions  through  their  entire  range.  2C0r.vii.10. 

(3)  The  Baptist  enj’oins  fruits  worthy  of  repentance.  These 
include  all  the  outward  expressions  of  repentance  : this  is  the 
fjLeTafxlXecrOat  and  the  fieTavoeiVj  which  together  mean  change 
of  mind  and  purpose  and  act. 

4.  But  are  not  all  these  the  fruit  of  a regenerate  life  ? 

No  : for,  though  there  is  spiritual  life  in  true  repentance, 
it  is  not  yet  the  life  of  regeneration. 


214 


The  Spirit’s  Administrahon. 


5.  Is  repentance  then  a midway  state,  between  nature  and 

grace  ? 

In  a certain  sense  it  is  so : there  are  fruits  of  a corrupt 
tree,  and  there  are  fruits  of  righteousness  in  the  new  nature  ; 
but  the  fruits  of  contrition  belong,  strictly  speaking,  to  neither 
of  these. 

6.  What  is  the  specific  relation  of  repentance  to  the  law  ? 

As  faith  honours  the  Gospel,  so  repentance  honours  the 
law.  (i)  In  contrition,  it  mourns  over  its  alienation  from  the 
holy  commandment,  and  over  personal  vileness  as  revealed 
in  its  light  ; (2)  in  confession,  it  acknowledges  the  justice 
of  the  sentence ; (3)  in  amendment,  it  strives  to  make 

reparation. 

7.  What  does  this  reparation  include  ? 

The  strictest  endeavours  to  keep  the  commandment,  to 
renounce  all  sin,  before  God  ; and,  before  man,  confession  of 
faults  and  reparation  for  every  offence. 

8.  Where  in  the  Gospels  have  we  the  full  doctrine  of  re 

pentance  ? 

Lukeiii.  8,  In  the  preaching  and  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist. 

9.  In  what  sense  is  repentance  the  effect  of  grace  ? 

It  is  the  result  of  prevenient  grace  : (i)  applying  the  law, 
whether  preached  or  read,  to  the  conscience  ; (2)  blessing  the 
thoughtful  consideration  induced  by  affliction  or  calamity ; 
(3)  strengthening  the  endeavour  to  turn  from  sin. 

10.  Where  is  the  state  of  conviction  fully  described? 

In  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans, 
where  St.  Paul  describes  his  former  experience  as  having  been 
brought  to  the  knowledge  of  sin  ; his  state  of  inward  distress  ; 
and  his  unavailing  efforts  to  keep  the  perfect  commandment : 
the  three  elements  of  repentance  in  its  relation  to  the  law  of 
God. 

11.  But  does  not  the  same  apostle,  in  Galatians  v.,  describe 

the  same  confiict  as  existing  in  the  regenerate  ? 

Not  the  same  conflict : it  is  between  the  flesh  and  the 


Conditions  of  Salvation. 


215 


Spirit  in  the  Galatians,  but  between  my  flesh  and  my  mind  in 
the  Romans.  Moreover,  in  the  former  he  describes 
the  flesh  as  crucified,  Christian  men,  led  by  the  Spirit^ 
as  not  fulfilling  its  lusts.  It  is  quite  otherwise  in  the 
latter,  where  the  convinced  sinner  is  a wretched  man 
and  still  sold  under  situ 


§ 6.  jTaitl)  m instrument  of  Saltjation, 

1.  What  is  the  faith  which  brings  salvation  ? 

It  is  that  act  or  habit  of  the  penitent  by  which,  under  the 
influence  of  the  Divine  grace,  he  puts  his  trust  in  Christ  as  the 
only  and  the  sufficient  Saviour. 

2.  Does  not  this  definition  give  a limited  view  of  faith  ? 

As  a condition  of  salvation  it  must  be  thus  limited  : it  is 
an  exercise  of  a common  faculty  directed  to  special  objects  ; 
the  act  of  the  penitent  only  ; as  specially  aided  by  the  Spirit  ; 
as  resting  on  Christ ; and  as  including  trust  in  Him. 

3.  Is  there  a more  general  view  of  faith  given  in  Scripture  ? 

Yes  : in  each  of  these  five  respects  a wider  faith  may  be 
noted,  out  of  which  the  saving  faith  springs. 

4.  Explain  this  more  fully  as  to  the  first. 

Faith  is  a primary  faculty  of  human  nature,  which  appre- 
hends and  believes  in  and  trusts  the  invisible  : all  men  to 
a certain  extent  walk  by  faith  and  not  by  sight  alone.  But 
saving  faith  is  that  faculty  directed  to  the  entire  compass  of 
the  revelation  of  saving  truth. 

6.  How  is  it  the  act  of  the  penitent  only  ? 

There  is  a mere  intellectual  belief  or  credence  of  which 
the  truths  of  revelation  are  the  object : their  external  and 
internal  credentials  may  win  men’s  assent  without  attracting 
their  hearts.  This  faith  every  intelligent  being  shall  sooner  or 
later  possess.  But  the  supernatural  order  has  in  it  a Gospel 
revealed  only  to  the  faith  of  the  penitent  : it  is  adapted  to 
repentance  as  light  is  to  the  eye. 


Gal.  V.  17. 
Rom.  vii.  18, 
23- 

Gal.  V.  18. 
Rom.  vii.  14, 

24. 


2I6 


T he  Spirit's  A dministration. 


6.  What  is  its  special  relation  to  Divine  grace  ? 

Saving  faith  is  exercised  under  the  influence  of  that 
general  prevenient  grace  without  which  man  can  do  nothing 
good:  that  grace  here  reaching  its  highest  point. 

7.  But  is  not  faith  said  to  be  of  the  operation  of  God  ? 

No,  faith  is  said  to  be  m the  working  and  operation  of  the 
God  who  raised  Christ  from  the  dead  : it  is  nowhere  declared 
Col.  ii.  12.  to  be  wrought  in  us  directly  and  independently. 

8.  Is  not  faith  one  of  the  fruits  of  regeneration,  and  a gift 

of  the  Spirit  ? 

The  former  is  a special  grace  of  the  new  life,  and  the 
latter  one  of  the  extraordinary  charisms  of  the  Spirit. 

9.  Does  saving  faith  make  Christ  its  only  object  ? 

Christ  is  certainly  the  first  and  nearest  object  where  the 
Gospel  is  preached.  God  is  however  always  and  most  neces- 
Heb  i 6 ultimate  object  of  all  saving  faith  : for  he 

^ * that  cometh  to  God  must  believe  that  He  is^  and  that 

He  is  a rewarder  of  them  that  seek  after  Him,  But  the 
revelation  of  Christ  is  the  revelation  of  God  ; and  thus  where 
God  is  the  object — as  in  justifying  faith — Christ  is  implied: 
and,  where  Christ  is  the  object,  God  is  implied. 

10.  What  measure  of  knowledge  must  precede  this  faith  ? 
Belief  cometh  of  hea^'mg : it  is  therefore  not  a vague 

trust  in  the  mere  name  of  Jesus.  But,  as  the  sole  condition  of 
our  being  saved,  faith  requires  no  more  than  a 
Rom.  X.  17.  h.nowledge  of  Christ  as  the  appointed  mediator 
between  God  and  men. 

11.  Why  is  the  trust  of  faith  made  so  emphatic? 

Because,  first,  it  is  the  person  of  a living  God  and 

Saviour  that  is  behind  all  nearer  objects  of  faith  ; and,  secondly, 

• it  is  the  simple  trust  of  the  heart  that  distinguishes  saving  faith 
from  all  other  belief. 

12.  Does  the  idea  of  trust  inhere  in  every  description  of 

saving  faith  ? 

That  it  does  so  may  be  seen  by  examination.  The  word 
mcTT^vuv  is  used  in  certain  varieties  ©f  phraseology:  (i) 


Conditions  of  Salvation, 


217 


followed  by  the  dative,  it  means  belief  of  the  words  of  God  or 
of  His  Son,  and  this  is  reliance  on  Divine  authority  ; (2) 
followed  by  liri  or  C69,  it  strongly  marks  repose  on  a sure 
foundation  ; (3)  indirectly  connected  with  cv  it  expresses  the 
trust  which  is  really  one  with  its  object.  Take  these  in  their 
order:  Ahraham  believed  God.  He  that  believeth  in  n \ - r 
the  00;/  hath  everlasting  life.  Ye  are  all  sons  oj  John  in.  36. 
God  in  Jesus  Christy  through  faith.  Gai.  111.26. 

13.  How  is  this  seen  in  the  figures  used  to  describe  faith  ? 
Seeking  refuge  in  Him,  coming  to  Him,  beholding  Him, 

eating  His  flesh  and  drinking  His  blood,  following  Him  : all 
these  current  illustrations,  which  almost  cease  to  be  figures, 
have  personal  trust  at  their  root. 

14.  Is  not  this  trust  full  assurance  ? 

It  is  an  assured  trust ; but  the  assurance  of  having  its 
object  does  not  belong  to  the  essence  of  faith  as  a condition  of 
salvation.  To  trust  without  this  assurance  is  the  strength  of 
faith  ; to  be  followed  by  assurance  is  its  privilege  and  glory. 

15.  How  does  this  agree  with  the  definition  of  Heb.  xi.  1 ? 
That  definition,  which  precedes  a catalogue  of  the 

triumphs  of  faith,  includes,  and  indeed  makes  pre-eminent,  the 
assurance  that  animates  the  work  of  faith.  Moreover,  it  is  not 
the  specific  faith  that  precedes  salvation,  but  the  general  prin- 
ciple of  faith  in  God,  which  is  there  intended. 


§ 7.  i^epentance  anU  jTait]^. 

1.  In  what  sense  does  repentance  precede  faith? 

The  self-loathing,  self-renouncing,  and  self-despairing 
penitent  alone  is  capable  of  saving  faith. 

2.  In  what  sense  does  faith  precede  repentance  ? 

None  can  thus  repent  without  faith  in  the  testimonies  of 
God’s  word  concerning  sin,  with  its  punishment  and  remedy. 

3.  How  are  they,  in  their  unity,  related  to  justification? 

The  penitent  convicted  of  sin  pleads  guilty,  trusts  in  the 
atoning  Reconciler,  and  his  faith  is  reckoned  for  righteousness. 


2I8 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


4.  How  to  regeneration  ? 

The  penitent,  acknowledging  his  spiritual  death,  receives 
the  Son  of  God  as  the  new  life  of  his  soul. 

6.  How  to  sanctification  ? 

The  penitent,  confessing  his  unholiness  before  the  altar 
and  trusting  in  the  virtue  of  the  sprinkled  blood,  is  purged 
from  his  defilement  and  accepted  on  the  altar  of  consecration. 

6.  Are  repentance  and  faith  only  preparatory  to  salvation  ? 

They  both  enter  the  regenerate  life  and  are  perfected  in 
it:  repentance  as  the  constant  remembrance  of  past  forgiven  sin, 
with  zealous  use  of  all  the  means  of  self-mortification  ; and 
faith  as  the  grace  which  worketh  by  love  in  the  pursuit  of 
perfection,  always  deepening  as  its  range  enlarges. 


§ 8.  'piistorical. 

1.  What  was  the  doctrine  of  the  early  Church  on  these 

subjects  of  Vocation  and  Prevenient  G-race  ? 

That  the  purpose  of  redemption  was  universal,  and  its 
effect  the  deliverance  of  mankind  from  absolute  slavery  to  sin  : 
this  was  brought  into  strong  prominence  in  opposition  to  the 
Manichaean  notion  that  its  connection  with  matter  determined 
the  soul  to  evil. 

2.  Was  there  any  difference  in  the  tendencies  of  Eastern 

and  Western  theology  ? 

The  Eastern  Church  from  the  beginning  exaggerated  the 
function  of  human  will  in  salvation.  The  Western  dwelt 
more  upon  the  influence  of  Divine  grace  upon  the  sinner  using 
his  will.  The  former  developed  into  Pelagianism  ; the  latter 
into  Augustinianism,  or  what  in  modern  times  is  termed,  from 
John  Calvin,  its  second  founder,  Calvinism. 

3.  What  did  Pelagius  teach  ? 

That  every  man  has  the  same  capacity  for  good  in  which 
Adam  was  created  : this  being  exposed  to  evil  example  on  the 
one  hand,  and  led  astray  ; or  stimulated  by  the  teaching  and 
better  example  of  Christ  on  the  other,  and  thus  corrected. 


Conditions  of  Salvation. 


219 


4.  Wliat  was  Augustine^s  teaching  in  opposition  ? 

That  all  whom  Christ  redeemed  are  actually  saved  ; that 
irresistible,  efficacious  grace  is  given  to  them  at  the  set  time  ; 
and  that  a special  gift  of  perseverance  ensures  the  perpetuity 
of  the  state  of  grace.  This  last  was  necessary  in  Augustine’s 
scheme,  because  of  his  doctrine  of  a sacramental  grace  in 
baptism  which  might  be  lost.  His  successor,  Calvin,  was  not 
embarrassed  by  any  views  of  a universal  sacramental  grace. 

5.  What  was  the  compromise  of  semi-Pelagianism  ? 

The  doctrine  that  grace  is  given  to  all  men  to  counteract 
the  effect  of  the  fall  ; that  every  man  has  strength  in  himself 
to  turn  to  God,  though  subsequent  stages  of  the  religious  life 
require  direct  grace. 

6.  What  form  did  this  assume  in  the  mediaeval  Church  ? 

There  was  much  controversy  in  the  sixth  and  ninth 
centuries  ; but  both  synodical  decisions  and  common  opinion 
inclined  towards  semi-Pelagianism.  There  was  a very  general 
agreement  that  the  foreknowledge  of  faith  or  disobedience  lies 
at  the  root  of  the  revealed  doctrine  of  election.  The  dogma  ot 
prevenient  grace  settled  at  the  Council  of  Trent  lays  much 
stress  on  a certain  “ merit  of  congruity  in  the  sinner’s  co- 
operation with  Divine  grace. 

7.  How  was  it  modified  in  Lutheranism  ? 

By  the  theory  called  Synergism,  which  rightly  taught 
that  man  co-operates  with  Divine  grace  from  the  beginning  of 
his  salvation  ; but  did  not  with  sufficient  distinctness  trace  this 
power  to  the  special  grace  of  the  Spirit  restored  in  redemption. 
Some  in  later  times  made  it  too  dependent  on  the  grace  of 
baptism.  And  others  have  supposed  that  the  prevenient  grace 
of  the  Spirit  goes  with  the  spirits  into  their  prison ; and  that 
it  is  awakened  by  preaching  in  Hades. 

8.  How  did  Calvin  mould  Augustine’s  doctrine  ? 

^ (i)  He  laid  his  foundations  deeply  in  the  absolute 
sovereignty  of  God.  (2)  The  internal  call  of  the  Gospel  is,  he 
asserted,  as  to  the  non-elect  a “sign  only,  or  the  expression 
of  “common  grace, to  be  distinguished  from  the  “sealing 

10*  ^ 


220 


The  Spirits  Administration. 


wilP^  of  “grace  effectual  for  the  elect  (3)  He  deprecated 
the  suppression  or  disguising  of  the  dogma  of  reprobation. 

9.  Has  Calvinism  undergone  any  modifications  ? 

Its  leading  standards — of  which  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession is  the  English  representative — are  unchanged.  But 
Amyraldus  in  France,  and  Baxter  in  England,  and  others  else- 
where, omitted  reprobation  from  the  system,  or  changed  it 
into  the  mere  withholding  of  irresistible  grace  from  the  non- 
elect. Again,  inasmuch  as  the  Divine  decrees  are  secret,  pre- 
destinarian  preachers  have  felt  bound  to  offer  the  Gospel  to 
all  men,  and  some  of  them  have  been  among  the  most  catholic 
and  effective  evangelists. 

10.  What  was  the  Arminian  form  of  the  doctrine  ? 

The  semi-Pelagian  mean  between  Pelagianism  and  Augus- 
tinianism  ; but  with  its  own  special  emphasis  on  the  gift  of 
the  Spirit  as  preserving  human  nature  from  total  ruin. 

11.  What  marks  the  best  Methodist  teaching  here  ? 

It  still  more  than  Arminianism  develops  the  doctrine  of 
prevenient  grace  : asserting  that  man  is  not  to  be  found  in  the 
fallen  state  of  nature  simply,  but  that  the  very  nature  itself  is 
grace  ; that  the  Spirit  works  through  the  word  with  His  own 
preliminary  influences,  deepening  and  bringing  them  to  per- 
fection ; and  that  this  continuous  prevenient  grace  is  in 
salvation  consummated  by  the  gift  of  regenerate  life. 

12.  What  evil  does  this  avoid  ? 

That  of  counting  mankind,  with  Augustine,  a “ mass  of 
perdition  ; of  holding  the  signs  of  preparatory  life  in  the 
convinced  sinner  to  be  only  “splendid  vices’^;  and  of  de- 
stroying the  identity  between  the  converted  sinner  and  the 
regenerate  man  in  Christ. 

13.  Does  not  the  opposed  system  ascribe  too  much  to  the 

human  will  ? 

(1)  It  adopts  strictly  the  language  and  tone  of  the  New 
Testament  ; and  leaves  the  unfathomable  mystery  with  God. 

(2)  It  simply  agrees  with  every  sound  theory  of  religion 


Conditions  of  Salvation. 


221 


or  philosophy  in  making  the  will  necessarily  free,  but  swayed 
by  the  character  of  the  man  who  uses  it. 

(3)  It  asserts  that  the  sinner  has  grace  given  to  him  which 
he  must  reject  if  he  turns  not  to  God. 

14.  What  principles  are  here  unquestionably  to  be  held  fast 
at  all  costs  ? 

(1)  That  God  is  righteous,  and  will  finally  approve  His 
righteousness,  in  all  His  dealings  with  His  creatures. 

(2)  That  whom  He  redeemed  He  will  certainly  call. 

(3)  That  the  methods  of  His  calling  are  unsearchable. 

(4)  That  He  calls  none  to  obey  without  giving  them  grace 
sufficient,  if  rightly  used,  to  enable  them  to  obey. 

(5)  That  it  is  a hopeless  if  not  irreverent  task  to  attempt  a 
reconciliation  between  the  undoubted  sovereignty  of  grace  and 
the  equally  undoubted  freedom  and  responsibility  of  man. 


2^2 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

§5tale  of  ^mce,  or  personal  ^aloalion. 

§ 1.  $tj5  3I3ii)ersitp  m Slnitp* 

1.  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  phrase  ? 

It  imports  the  Christian  state  of  full  privilege:  as  dis- 
tinguished (i)  from  the  grace  of  preparation  on  one  side,  and 
(2)  from  the  ethics  of  the  religious  life  on  the  other. 

2.  Is  it  not  the  middle  term  between  the  state  of  nature 

and  the  state  of  glory  ? 

It  is  so  : always  remembering,  however,  that  the  state  of 
nature  is  itself  more  or  less  a state  of  grace. 

3.  How  is  this  state  described  in  the  New  Testament  ? 

Rom.  V.  2.  As  T/ie  grace  wherein  we  stand,  or  Our  common 
I'cor^xiii  14.  or  The  communion  of  the  Holy  Spirit^  or 

2 Cor.  V.  17.  our  being Christ, 

4.  Are  there  no  other  terms  or  phrases  that  describe  it  ? 

Rom  V II  Less  directly,  and  in  more  special  relations,  it  is 
I john  y.  12.  said  to  be  Receiving  the  reconciliation^  or  Having 
Rom.v111.23.  Qj.  possessing  The  firstfruits  of  the  Spirit, 

6.  What  is  specially  meant  by  the  state  of  grace  ? 

St.  Paul  says  that  hy  faith  we  have  had  our  access  into  this 
grace  wherein  we  stand:  all  the  words  are  emphatic,  and  teach 
that  grace  is  a sphere  or  state  into  which  penitent 
Rom.  V.  2.  believers  are  admitted,  which  they  occupy  together, 
and  in  which  they  prepare  for  glory.  Grace  was  given  out- 
„ side,  or  we  could  not  have  entered  ; but  grace 

Rom.  vi.  14.  reigns  within.  Hence  it  is  said  that  we  are  not 
under  law^  hut  under  grace.  The  grace  that  brought 


Personal  Salvation. 


223 


Christ  to  us  and  us  to  Christ  here  puts  on  its  perfection  and 
imparts  its  highest  gifts. 

6.  What  is  the  leading  idea  in  the  word  Grace  ? 

The  unmerited  favour  of  God  resting  on  the  soul : this 
will  satisfy  nearly  all  the  passages  in  which  occurs.  Oc- 
casionally, however,  that  favour  becomes,  as  it  were,  an  internal 
principle.  The  same  word  is  used  for  thanks  returned  to  God. 

7.  What  is  meant  here  by  unity  and  diversity? 

(1)  The  estate  of  grace  or  personal  salvation  may  be 
viewed  under  several  aspects : in  relation  to  the  law  of  God,  it 
is  the  recovery  of  righteousness  ; as  it  respects  the  soul’s  death 
in  sin,  it  is  the  renewal  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus,  or  sonship  ; in 
regard  to  our  fellowship  with  God,  it  is  sanctification. 

(2)  But  these  are  not  blessings  following  one  another  : 
they  are  all  one  as  an  application  of  the  virtue  of  the  atone- 
ment by  the  Spirit,  and  one  as  flowing  from  union  with  Christ. 

8.  How  are  these  three  one  in  the  atonement? 

They  are  procured  by  the  virtue  of  the  death  of  Christ 
toward  God.  That  virtue  toward  man  is  imparted  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  three  lines  : as  the  atonement  has  satisfied  the 
claims  of  law,  its  benefit  is  our  pardon  and  righteousness  ; as 
it  has  abolished  death  and  removed  the  veil  between  God  and 
man  in  the  reconciliation,  its  benefit  is  our  new  regenerate 
life  ; as  it  is  the  sacrifice  of  expiation,  its  benefit  is  our  sancti- 
fication unto  holiness.  But  these  are  one  and  the  same  blessing. 

9.  How  are  they  one  in  our  union  with  Christ? 

(i)  We  are  to  become  the  righteousness  of  God  in  Him; 
and  are  accepted  through  His  grace  ^ which  He  freely  ^ 
bestowed  on  us  in  the  Beloved.  (2)  If  any  man  is  in 
Christy  he  is  a new  creature  ; and  (3)  we  are  sancti-  jCor  TJ’ 
fied  in  Christ  Jesus. 

10.  Does  all  this  mean  that  these  blessings  are  given  for 

Christ’s  sake? 

For  Christ’s  sake  is  in  Scripture  simply  “ in  Christ : As 
God  also  in  Christ  forgave  you.  Both  ideas  are 
sacred;  but  that  of  union  with  Christ  implies  that 
the  believer  is  really  one  with  Christ  in  the  virtue  of  His 


224 


The  Spirits  Administration, 


atoning  death  to  sin  and  in  the  virtue  of  His  life-giving  Spirit. 
This  is  the  deepest  earthly  mystery  of  grace. 

11.  Is  there  then  no  consecutive  order  in  the  communication 

of  these  blessings? 

They  are  all  given  together ; or  rather  are  the  same 
common  salvation  viewed  under  three  aspects. 

(1)  We  may  begin  with  righteousness:  the  sentence  of 
condemnation  is  taken  away  from  the  penitent,  who  is  then 
adopted  and  regenerated  and  then  consecrated  to  God. 

(2)  We  may  begin  with  sonship  : the  new  life  given  in 

Christ  is  released  from  the  sentence  in  the  court  and  placed  on 
the  altar  in  the  temple.  This  is  essentially  the  same. 

(3)  We  may  begin  with  sanctification  : the  defiled  sinner 
sprinkled  from  the  conscience  of  sin  in  the  temple  is  blessed 
with  a new  life  in  Christ,  and  his  sins  are  remembered  no 
more.  This  third  combination  harmonises  with  the  preceding. 

12.  But  is  there  no  difference  between  inward  and  outward 

salvation  ? 

The  righteousness  and  sonship  and  sanctification  are  all 
three  both  inward  and  outward  : no  one  of  them  is  different 
from  the  others  in  this  respect. 

13.  Is  not  justification  wrought  for  us  and  sanctification 

wrought  in  us? 

This  popular  distinction  is  hardly  scriptural  : there  is  an 
internal  as  well  as  an  external  righteousness  ; and  there  is  both 
an  external  and  an  internal  sanctification. 

14.  But  is  not  sanctification  the  continuance  and  progress 

of  regeneration  ? 

Not  any  more  than  it  is  the  progress  of  justification.  The 
three  terms  belong  to  totally  distinct  departments  of  thought  : 
regeneration  means  new  life,  sanctification  the  giving  this  to 
God,  and  righteousness  its  harmony  with  the  Divine  law. 

15.  What  terms  are  used  to  distinguish  the  outward  and 

inward  blessings  of  the  Christian  estate? 

(i)  We  speak  of  righteousness  as  imputed  and  imparted. 
Sometimes  the  distinction  is  between  forensic  (pronounced  in 
a court)  and  moral,  or  inwrought. 


Personal  Salvation. 


225 


(2)  It  is  more  appropriate  to  speak  of  sonship  as  declaratory 
adoption  and  as  inwrought  regeneration. 

(3)  And  of  sanctification  as  external  consecration,  as  on  an 
altar,  and  internal  purification. 

16.  Does  this  threefold  distinction  regulate  the  phraseology 

of  Scripture  ? 

Yes,  down  to  very  minute  shades  : there  are  three  classes 
of  terms  into  which  may  be  distributed  all  the  descriptions  of 
the  Christian  estate.  They  are  terms  of  the  lawcourt,  of  the 
household  of  God,  and  of  the  temple,  respectively. 

17.  Illustrate  the  unity  in  diversity  of  these  terms. 

(1)  As  the  Christian  estate  is  before  the  law,  God  is  the 
Judge,  Christ  is  the  Advocate  and  Surety,  sin  is  transgression, 
the  atonement  is  a satisfaction,  repentance  is  conviction,  accept- 
ance is  pardon  or  remission,  renewal  is  righteousness,  the  Spirit’s 
witness  is  of  pardon,  and  the  Christian  life  is  obedience : its 
perfection  being  the  fulfilment  of  the  ordinance  of  the  law. 

(2)  As  it  is  a new  life  in  Christ,  God  is  the  Father,  Christ  is 
the  Elder  Brother  and  the  Life,  sin  is  selfwill  and  rebellion,  the 
atonement  is  reconciliation,  the  penitent  is  a prodigal,  accept- 
ance is  adoption,  renewal  is  regeneration,  the  Spirit’s  witness 
is  that  of  adoption,  the  Christian  life  is  the  mortification  of 
the  old  man  and  the  raising  up  of  the  new:  its  perfection  being 
the  perfect  reflection  of  the  image  of  Christ  the  Onlybegotteri. 

(3)  As  it  is  life  dedicated  in  the  temple,  God  is  God  only, 
Christ  is  the  High  Priest,  sin  is  defilement,  the  atonement  is  an 
expiatory  sacrifice,  repentance  is  consciousness  of  being  unclean, 
the  soul  is  accepted  on  the  altar,  the  Spirit’s  witness  is  the 
silent  seal  of  His  possession,  the  Christian  life  is  holiness  ; its 
perfection  being  entire  sanctification  from  sin  and  to  God. 

18.  Is  there  not  a progression  from  justification  through 

regeneration  to  entire  sanctification  ? 

These  three  blessings  must  begin  together ; and  each  has 
its  own  sure  progress  towards  its  own  perfection. 

19.  Are  all  the  terms  in  each  class  kept  quite  distinct? 
Usually  they  are  ; but  a few,  such  as  faith  and  love,  belong 

to  the  phraseology  of  all  departments  alike. 


226 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


I. 

§:^rtsftatt  '^ig^feousttcss. 

§ 1.  JpreU'minarp. 

1.  What  are  the  leading  terms  in  this  subject? 

(1)  Those  which  belong  to  the  family  of  hiKyj  or  right,  each 
of  which  will  be  found  to  occupy  its  place  in  the  doctrine. 

(2)  All  those  which  use  the  language  of  judicial  procedure  : 
almost  every  forensic  term  employed  in  human  lawcourts  is 
introduced  with  its  evangelical  meaning. 

(3)  Many  also  which  more  indirectly  keep  in  view  the 
idea  of  religion  as  obedience  to  law,  and  as  the  attainment  of 
a character  in  harmony  with  right. 

2.  Is  not  Christianity  made,  here  at  the  outset,  too  legal  ? 

The  Saviour  came  not  to  destroy  the  law  ; He  bids  us  to 
seek  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  His  righteousness.  And 
Matt.  V.  17;  St.  Paul  says  that  in  the  Gospel  we  establish  law. 
Rom^iii.31  substance  of  Christianity  is  the  perfect  law.,  the 

jas.  i.  25.  law  of  liberty. 

3.  Does  not  the  Gospel,  having  delivered  ns  from  the  sentence 

of  the  law,  train  ns  to  a perfection  independent  of  law  ? 

No  : for  the  whole  business  of  religion,  from  beginning  to 
end,  is  transacted  in  the  mediatorial  court  ; that  the  require- 
Rom.viii.4.  't'yteiit  (or  righteousness)  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled 
Rom.  vi.  18.  in  US.  Christianity  makes  its  bondservants 

unto  righteousness : though  the  service  is  perfect  freedom. 

§ 2.  iii'gtteousness. 

1.  What  is  the  meaning  of  righteousness  in  Scripture  ? 

The  state  or  character  which  is  conformed  to  the  standard 
of  the  Divine  law.  That  is  StKaLoavvrjj  and  he  who  has  satisfied 
or  is  satisfying  the  law  is  SiKatos,  righteous. 

2.  Can  fallen  man  thus  satisfy  the  law? 

He  cannot  satisfy  it  save  by  suffering  its  penalty.  He  is  by 
nature  both  condemned  and  without  strength  : 
under  the  law. 


Rom.  vi.  14. 


Personal  Salvation. 


227 


3.  How  is  the  phrase  ‘‘righteousness  of  God”  used  in  the 

New  Testament  ? 

To  signify  that  new  and  special  righteousness  which  in 
the  gospel  God  provides  and  accepts.  This  righteousness  of 
God  is  called  the  righteousness  of  Christ  and  the  righteousness 
of  faith  as  opposed  to  man’s  own  righteousness  and  Rom.  x.3. 
to  that  of  the  law  or  of  works.  Phii.  iii.g. 

4.  In  what  sense  is  it  a special  righteousness  ? 

Because  it  has  been  specially  provided  to  meet  the  case  of 
sinners  by  the  Lawgiver  Himself. 

6.  How  does  it  meet  their  case? 

Through  the  virtue  of  Christ’s  atoning  satisfaction,  right- 
eousness is  imputed  to  them  as  they  are  outwardly  condemned, 
and  imparted  to  them  as  they  are  inwardly  unrighteous. 

6.  Is  it  then  Christ’s  righteousness  as  well  as  the  righteous- 

ness of  God  ? 

The  phrase  “ righteousness  of  Christ’^  is  never  used; 
nor  is^  that  said  to  be  imputed.  But  He  is  made  iCor.i.30. 
unto  Its  righteousness.,  and  we  are  made  the  righteous-  2Cor.v.2i. 
ness  of  God  in  Him. 

7.  Is  there  here  any  real  difference? 

It  may  seem  hard  to  deny  that  Christ’s  righteousness  is 
put  to  the  believer’s  account  ; but  the  true  doctrine  of  imputa- 
tion shows  why  the  Scripture  does  not  say  that  it  is. 

8.  What  is  the  true  doctrine  of  imputation  ? 

Imputation  is  the  reckoning  to  a man  his  own  act  with  its 
consequences  : as  when  sin  is  imputed  to  every  living  soul. 
But  imputation,  in  its  evangelical  meaning,  is  also  the  reckon- 
ing to  any  one  the  consequences  of  another’s  act  : as  the  con- 
sequences of  Adam’s  sin  are  reckoned  to  his  descendants  ; the 
consequences  of  man’s  sin  were  reckoned  to  Christ  ; and  the 
consequences  of  Christ’s  obedience  are  reckoned  to  the  believer. 

9.  How  then  is  Christas  righteousness  reckoned  to  man  ? 

First,  it  is  put  to  the  account  of  all  the  world  in  that  God 
is  reconciled  to  the  human  race  and  condemns  none  for  the 


228 


The  SpiriVs  Administration. 


original  sin.  Secondly,  and  chiefly,  it  is  put  to  the  believer’s 
account  in  his  being  reckoned  and  dealt  with  as  a righteous 
person  in  Christ  or  for  His  sake. 

10.  What  is  that  righteousness  of  Christ  which  is  reckoned 

to  us  in  its  benefit  ? 

His  one  great  obedience,  active  and  passive, — these  being 
, essentially  one,  — whereby  He  is  the  Lord  our 

Jer.  xxui.  i6.  *7/ 

^ righteousness. 

11.  Is  the  personal  righteousness  of  Christ  Himself  reckoned 

to  the  believer  as  his  own  ? 

Assuredly  not ; any  more  than  the  personal  sin  of  the 
sinner  was  reckoned  to  be  Christ’s.  Moreover,  as  the  Divine 
Son  of  God  could  not  have  our  individual  sins  imputed  to 
Him,  so  His  Divine-human  obedience  was  altogether  beyond 
the  range  of  man’s  obedience  to  the  law.  There  could  not  be 
any  such  personal  transfer. 

12.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  “righteousness  of 

faith”? 

As  the  “righteousness  of  God”  describes  the  evangelical 
method  in  its  origin,  and  the  “righteousness  of  Christ” 
describes  it  in  its  grounds,  so  the  “ righteousness  of  faith  ” 
describes  it  in  its  instrumentality  on  the  part  of  man.  Faith 
receives  it  as  external,  and  works  through  love  an  internal 
righteousness  : thus  it  is  always  of  faith. 

13.  Then  the  righteousness  of  faith  includes  the  internal 

righteousness  ? 

Yes  : it  is  the  Divine  method  of  placing  man  at  all  points 
and  for  ever  in  his  right  relation  to  the  eternal  law. 

14.  In  what  sense  was  this  called  a new  method  ? 

Its  grounds  and  nature  are  fully  revealed  only  in  the  Gospel ; 
but  this  righteousness  alone  has  been  valid  and  sufficient  in  all 
ages.  Through  the  mediation  of  Jesus  not  yet  manifested  God 
has  been  Just  and  the  Justifier  of  all  from  the  beginning  who 
put  their  trust  in  Him.  St.  Paul  says  that  this  method,  apart 
from  law^  is  yet  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the  prophets  : 
Rom.  111.21.  Scripture.  Faith  in  the  Redeemer, 

revealed  or  unrevealed,  has  been  the  principle  of  acceptance 
from  the  first. 


Personal  Salvation. 


229 


15.  What  parti<3ular  proof  of  this  does  St.  Paul  give  ? 

His  chief  illustration  is  Abraham  : to  Abraham  his  faith 
was  reckoned  for  righteousness ; who  received  the  ^ 

sign  of  circumcisio7i^  a seal  of  the  f'ighteousness  of  n. 
the  faith  which  he  had  while  in  circumcision  : that  he 
might  he  the  father  of  all  thetn  that  believe.  St.  James  uses  the 
same  illustration. 

10.  Was  not  the  righteousness  of  faith  before  Abraham  ? 

From  the  beginning  faith  was  the  condition  of  acceptance 
and  the  strength  of  all  obedience.  Noah  became 
heir  of  the  7'ighteousness  which  is  according  to  faith.  ^ 

17.  W'hat  was  in  early  times  the  specific  object  of  this  faith? 
The  general  promise  of  Christ  the  Deliverer.  Abraham’s 

faith  had  reference  to  the  Seed  of  whom  Isaac  was  the  type  : 
it  was  not  faith  in  God  generally,  but  faith  towards  God  as 
revealing  the  promise  of  Christ.  A certain  prophecy  of  a 
coming  Saviour  began  the  history  of  fallen  mankind. 

18.  How  does  St.  Paul  sum  up  all  this  ? 

In  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  chiefly,  which  is  much 
occupied  with  the  judicial  aspect  of  the  Gospel ; and  especially 
in  the  sentence  at  the  outset  which  lays  down  its  general  subject. 

19.  Give  an  analysis  of  that  verse. 

It  speaks  (i)  of  the  righteousness  of  God ; as  (2)  revealed 
in  the  gospel  as  a righteousness  through  Christ;  j ^5 
and  (3)  as  a righteousness  only  to  believers,  whether  17,  19- 
Jew  or  Greek  : being  a righteousness  originating  as  to  God 
from  faith,  and  as  to  man  operating  by  faith  unto  faith; 
attested  by  the  prophet’s  word.  But  the  righteous  shall  live 
by  faith  ; and  finally  a revelation  not  only  of  mercy  but  of  the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation^  unto  righteousness  internal  and 
external. 

20.  Is  this  epistle  occupied  only  with  righteousness  ? 

That  is  its  leading  theme  ; but  as  it  proceeds  it  connects 

Christian  righteousness  both  with  Christian  sonship  and  with 
Christian  sanctification. 


230 


The  SpiriVs  Administration. 


§ 3.  justification  fip  jFaitt) : ImputeU  iHi'g^teousness, 

1.  In  what  way  is  the  relation  of  righteousness  to  faith 

expressed  ? 

We  read  of  (i)  righteousness  through  faith  (Sid)  ; (2) 
righteousness  f'om  faith  (iK) ; (3)  righteousness  0/  faith  (the 
Rom.  iii.  22.  genitive) ; (4)  righteousness  according  to  faith  {ko.t6)  ; 
Kom  iv^ii’  righteousness  of  God  on  faith  {Ittl),  Never,  of 
Heb.’xi.V.  * course,  “ on  account  of’’  (Sta  with  the  accusative)  : as 
Phil. 111.  9.  were  the  ground. 

2.  These  indicate  faith  as  the  instrument  generally  ; hut  what 

is  the  more  precise  relation  of  faith  to  righteousness  ? 

It  is  exhibited  in  two  ways,  (i)  Faith  is  reckoned  for 
righteousness  : to  him  that  worketh  not^  hut  believeth  on  Him 
that  justifieth  the  ungodly^  his  faith  is  reckoned  for 
om.iv.5.  righteousness.  The  ungodly  who  believes  is  treated 
as  if  he  were  not  ungodly : his  faith  is  the  only  obedience  he 
can  render,  and  it  stands  in  the  stead  of  all  other  righteousness 
at  the  moment  of  his  acceptance.  (2)  Righteousness,  however, 
is  not  reckoned  to  the  faith,  but  to  the  man  who  believes : 
Ahraham  believed  God^  and  it  was  reckoned  to  him 
om.  IV.  3.  righteousness.  This  latter  way  of  stating  the 

same  truth  guards  the  former. 

3.  What  terms  are  used  for  the  application  of  this  blessing  ? 

(i)  God  is  said  to  justify  ; that  is,  to  pronounce  or  declare 
righteous,  StKatovv.  It  is  God  that  justifieth^  who  is  he  that 
shall  condemn  ? Here  this  SiKaiwy  is  the  exact 
0m.v111.33.  of  Kara/cptVan',  as  it  usually  is  throughout 

Scripture.  (2)  God  pronounces  a sentence  of  justification, 
0)0-19.  Who  was  delivered  up  for  our  trespasses^  and  was 
raised  for  owr  justification.^  ^id  rrjv  diKaLo^cnv 
Rom. IV. 25.  Christ  was  raised  to  justify  us;  but  His 

resurrection  declared  that  His  death  was  the  valid  meritorious 
ground  justifying  or  warranting  the  act  of  our  justification. 
(3)  God  is  said  to  pardon  the  sinner  or  remit  his  penalty  or 
not  impute  his  sin  : these  meaning  the  same.  Blessed  are 
they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven.  Blessed  is  the 
Rom.  IV.  7, 8.  whom  the  Lord  will  not  reckon  sin. 


Personal  Salvation. 


231 


4.  state  clearly  the  distinction  between  pardon,  remission, 
and  justification. 

(i)  Pardon  rests  upon  the  sinner,  and  is  expressed  as  the 
free  bestowment  of  grace  : exapco-aro,  He  frankly  forgave, 
Grace^  which  He  freely  bestowed  on  us  in  the  ^2. 

Beloved.  (2)  Remission  refers  to  the  guilt  or  debt  Eph.  i.  6. 
or  penalty  of  sin  not  exacted  : d</>t€Vat,  and  dcj5)eo-t9,  the  most 
frequent  of  all.  (3)  Justification  is  the  regarding  that  forgiven 
person,  whose  debt  is  remitted,  as  being  also  in  the  position  of 
a righteous  person.  This  is  the  strict  meaning  of  an  imputa- 
tion of  righteousness. 

6.  Who  is  the  dispenser  of  justification  ? 

It  is  God  that  justifieth  as  the  Judge  in  the  mediatorial 
court.  Our  Lord  forgave  sins  ; but  when  the  economy  „ 

C T - II**  XX  Rom.vm.  34 

01  mediation  is  fully  revealed  it  is  in  Him  eve^y  one  Actsxiii.39. 
that  believeth  is  justified^  not  ‘‘by  Him  -f  God  also 
IN  Christ  forgave  us^  which  has  been  translated  and  read  as 
“ for  Christ’s  sake.” 

6.  What  is  the  specific  object  on  which  justifying  faith  rests  ? 

(i)  Formally  stated,  and  according  to  the  theory  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  it  rests  on  Him  that  raised  Jesus  our  Lord 
from  the  dead.,  who  was  delivered  up  for  our  trespasses.,  and 
was  raised  for  our  justification  : the  Father  accepts  His  Son’s 
sacrifice  for  us,  proves  this  by  His  Son’s  resurrection,  and  as 
the  just  consequence  exercises  the  judicial  act  of  dt/caiWt?. 
(2)  But  habitually  the  object  is  Jesus  Christ  Himself ; Roni.  m.  22; 
and  once  it  is  God  that  justifieth  the  ungodly.,  this  iv.5. 

“ strange  act  ” being  His  glory  in  redemption,  and  the  prerogative 
of  the  mediatorial  court  : its  most  ancient  and  sacred  tradition. 

7.  Is  not  the  blood  of  Christ  the  object  of  this  faith? 

St.  Paul  speaks  of  our  being  now  justified  by.,  or  in^  His 
blood  as  the  great  first  deliverance,  which  is  ground 
of  confidence  that  we  shall  be  saved  from  future 
wrath.  “ Faith  in  His  blood  ” is  a phrase  that  does  not  cer- 
tainly occur  ; we  should  rather  read  : Whom  God  set 
forth  a propitiation  in  His  bloody  through  faith.,  to 
shew  His  righteousness.  Our  reliance  is  on  the  blood  of 
Christ,  but  still  more  directly  on  Himself  ; faith  passes  by 
every  other  object  and  seeks  only  the  Lord. 


232 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


§ 4.  justification  fjg  jF^'ii't?) : Jmpartetf  l^ltg^teouaness. 

1.  What  is  the  relation  between  imputed  and  imparted 

righteousness  ? 

(i)  They  are  to  be  carefully  distinguished:  the  former 
looks  at  the  present  and  past,  imputing  righteousness  in  the 
sense  of  not  imputing  sin  ; the  latter  looks  at  the  present  and 
future,  making  provision  for  new  obedience.  (2)  They  must 
never  be  separated  : imputation  would  dishonour  law  if  it  was 
not  bound  up  with  security  for  future  righteousness ; and 
imparted  righteousness  must  always  be  accompanied  by  im- 
puted in  the  case  of  every  forgiven  sinner. 

2.  More  explicitly  state  this  last  view  of  the  relation. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  imputation  of  righteousness  01 
non-imputation  of  sin  must  take  the  lead  ; a man  is  pardoned 
before  he  goes  to  sin  no  more.  It  may  also  be  said  that,  when 
he  is  made  perfectly  righteous,  and  throughout  eternity,  his 
past  sin  will  still  remain  as  a fact  not  imputed  : there  will  be 
for  ever  a non-imputation  to  him  of  his  guilt. 

3.  What  is  the  strict  meaning  of  imparted  righteousness  ? 

It  is  given  in  the  terms  of  the  new  covenant  : T will  put 
My  laws  mto  their  mind^  and  on  their  heart  also  I will  write 
Heb.  vii.  10.  them.  Again,  the  new  nature  hath  been  created  in 
Eph.  iv.  24.  righteousness. 

4.  Does  not  this  connect  righteousness  with  regeneration  ? 

Yes  : it  has  already  been  seen  that  it  is  the  regenerate  soul 
which  is  both  made  righteous  and  made  holy.  The  living 
Christian  is  brought  into  harmony  with  the  law  of  God  : that 
is  his  righteousness.  He  is  brought  into  fellowship  with  the 
holiness  of  God  : that  is  his  sanctification. 

6.  What  terms  are  used  for  the  pursuit  of  this  righteousness  ? 

It  is  called  obedience  in  principle  : And  hereby  we  know 
that  we  know  Him.,  if  we  keep  His  commandments.  The  sum 
and  strength  of  this  obedience  is  love  : Love  there- 
Rom.xiii.io.  fore  is  the  fulfilment  of  law.  And  the  result  is 
I John  111.7.  practical  righteousness  ; He  that  doeth  righteousness 
is  righteous. 


Personal  Salvation. 


233 


6.  But  is  not  this  anticipating  Christian  ethics  ? 

Yes,  in  some  measure  : doctrine  and  morality  go  together. 
This  righteousness,  however,  is  really  imparted  by  the  Spirit, 
and  imparted  to  faith  : hence  it  is  as  much  a branch  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith  as  imputed  righteousness  is. 

7.  How  is  this  seen  ? 

(i)  Faith  embraces  the  promise  of  the  virtue  of  the  blood 
of  Jesus  to  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighieousness  ; and  j jo^n  i.  9. 

(2)  faith  working  through  love  is  reckoned  for  a perfect  Gai.  v.  6. 
fulfilment  of  all  law.  Together  these  passages  show  that  the 
internal  righteousness  is  given  or  administered  by  the  Spirit 
to  faith. 

8.  What  is  the  extent  of  attainment  permitted  to  the  hope 

and  desire  of  faith? 

That  the  righteousness  (or  requireme7it)  of  the  law  might 
he  fulfilled  in  us.  The  standard  is  even  as  He  is  Rom.viii.  3. 
righteous.  These  classical  passages  also  shew  that  ijohniii.  7. 
the  righteousness  of  the  inner  man  is  a gift  that  must  come 
from  above. 

§ 5.  iFaitf)  anU  OTorfes. 

1.  How  is  the  relation  of  faith  and  works  exhibited  ? 

(1)  Faith  is  opposed  to  works  as  meritorious,  and  the 
formula  is  : A man  is  not  justified  by  works  of  law^ 

but  only  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 

(2)  Faith  lives  only  in  its  works,  and  the  formula 

is  : Faith  without  works  is  dead,  Jas.u.26. 

(3)  Faith  is  justified  and  approved  by  works,  and 
the  formula  is  : Twill  shew  thee  my  faith  by  my  works. 

(4)  Faith  is  perfected  in  works,  and  the  formula 
is  : By  works  was  faith  made  perfect. 

2.  How  may  this  be  otherwise  stated  ? 

The  texts  given  above  justify  us  in  saying  that  works  are 
(i)  the  result  of  faith,  (2)  the  test  of  faith,  (3)  the  consum- 
mation of  faith. 

3.  What  works  are  excluded  from  justification  and  in  what 

sense? 

(i)  All  that  flows  from  the  sinner  and  is  his  own  Phil. Hi. 9 


234 


The  SpiriVs  Administration. 


righteousness  must  be  below  the  requirement  of  the  law,  and 
therefore  be  rejected  as  a ground  of  justification. 

(2)  Any  righteousness  of  the  law^  of  any  law  whatever, 
...  must  be  insufficient  ground  of  justification,  on  account 
1.111.9.  transgression  which  law  never  forgets. 


4.  What  works  are  necessary  for  justification  and  in  what 
sense  are  they  necessary? 

(1)  All  those  which  spring  from  Christ  and  the  poiver  of 
His  resurrection^  or  the  virtue  of  His  life  within  the 
believer. 

(2)  All  those  that  show  the  special  kind  of  obedience  which 
is  the  condition  of  present  and  future  and  final 
acceptance. 


Phil.  iii.  10. 


Heb.  V.  9. 


6.  What  then  do  we  mean  in  saying  that  justification  is  by 
faith  only? 

That  (i)  faith  excludes  the  righteousness  of  our  own 
works  ; (2)  it  simply  appropriates  the  righteousness  provided 
in  Christ ; and  (3)  it  is  the  strength  of  all  subsequent  obedience 
to  law  or  internal  righteousness. 

6 . How  do  works  show  the  life  of  faith  ? 

In  two  ways  : (1)  living  faith  is  the  faith  of  a living  ot 
regenerate  soul  and  worketh  through  love;  (2)  living  faith 
Gai.v.  6.  unites  with  Christ  and  must  produce  the  fruits 

John  XV.  5.  which  declare  His  indwelling.  He  that  abideth  in 
Me  and  I in  him^  the  same  beareth  much  fruit. 


7.  Does  not  this  discountenance  the  thought  of  a distinct 

imputation  of  Christ’s  active  righteousness? 

Most  certainly.  Before  union  v ; Him  we  must  think 
of  no  other  obedience  than  His  ; afterwards  by  His  Spirit  He 
fulfils  the  law  in  us  who  fulfilled  it  once  for  all  for  us. 

8.  How  is  all  this  illustrated  in  Abraham  the  Father  and 

Pattern  of  believers  ? 

By  St.  Paul  and  St.  James  respectively,  and  independently 
of  each  other,  (i)  Both  represent  the  justification  of  Abraham 
as  a declaration  or  reckoning  of  righteousness,  quoting  the 
Rom.  iv.  22.  same  phrase,  IXoyio-Or)  avrlj^  eh  BiKaLoo-vvrjv : St.  James 
jas.ii.  23.  indeed  quoting  it  more  fully.  (2)  St.  Paul  refers  to 


Personal  Salvation. 


235 


the  time  when  Abraham’s  faith  was  only  looking  unto  the 
pro7nise  of  God ; St.  James’s  to  a time  when  faith 
wi'oicght  with  his  wof'ks.  (3)  St.  James  gives  the  cen!xv'.’6.°* 
solution  : By  works  was  faith  made  perfect^  eTek^idiOrj.  ii-^22. 
The  principle  of  faith  in  Gen.  xv.  was  developed 
into  its  issues  in  Gen.  xxii.  But  it  was  the  same  faith  and  the 
same  righteousness  of  faith. 

9.  What  is  the  difference  between  the  two  apostles  as  to 

living  faith  ? 

St.  Paul  makes  living  Yaith  the  soul  which  quickens  works 
otherwise  dead ; St.  James  makes  works  the  soul  which 
quickens  faith  otherwise  dead.  But  a close  examination  shows 
that  they  mean  the  same  thing. 

10.  How  does  St.  John  harmonise  the  two  views? 

By  this  warning  : Little  children^  let  no  man  deceive  you  : 
he  that  doeth  righteousness  is  righteous ^ even  as  He 
is  righteous.  * 


§ 6.  5^1'atoncal. 

1.  What  was  the  general  teaching  of  the  early  Fathers  as 

to  the  righteousness  of  faith  ? 

(1)  They  were  faithful  to  apostolical  doctrine  and  phrase  : 
laying  more  stress,  however,  on  the  internal  righteousness  than 
on  the  righteousness  imputed. 

(2)  Gradually,  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  germs  of 
error  began  to  appear  : such  as  the  satisfaction  of  good  works 
being  held  necessary  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins  committed  after 
baptism  ; and  a higher  righteousness  to  be  found  in  keeping 
the  counsels  of  perfection. 

2.  Sum  up  the  tendencies  of  mediaeval  error. 

They  may  be  expressed  in  few  words.  The  legal  element 
in  Christianity  was  exaggerated  : 

(i)  Justification  was  made  to  be  the  issue  of  a series  of 
preparations  which,  not  having  any  merit  properly  so  called 
(meritum  e condigno),  yet  deserve  acceptance  by  way  of  con- 
gruity  (meritum  e congruo).  This  disturbed  the  simplicity  of 
the  Gospel,  and  laid  a snare  in  the  way  of  the  penitent. 

11 


236 


The  SpiriVs  Administration. 


(2)  Justification  when  bestowed  was  regarded  as  the 
making  righteous  by  the  infusion  of  inherent  grace.  Thus 
faith,  hope  and  charity,  the  three  theological  graces,  were 
themselves  regarded  as  righteousness. 

(3)  Faith  therefore  was  the  instrument  of  justification, 

not  as  appropriating  the  promise  in  Christ,  but  as  being  the 
germ  of  all  good  : informed  with  charity.’^ 

(4)  Justification  as  imputed  righteousness  was  entirely 
undervalued,  if  not  lost,  in  the  dogma  of  a justification  which 
ONLY  makes  righteous  ” and  imparts  righteousness  gradually. 

3.  Were  there  no  protests  against  these  tendencies? 

Yes  : there  were  never  wanting  voices  that  warned  against 
the  idea  of  merit  in  good  works,  and  denied  the  Church’s  fund 
for  indulgences,  and  mourned  over  the  dishonour  thus  done  to 
the  Grace  of  the  Gospel. 

4.  Were  these  protests  effectual  ? 

Not  until  the  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century — 
Protestantism  proper — which  originated  in  the  vindication  of 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  grace  or  the  righteousness 
of  faith  against  the  traditions  of  Rome. 

5.  What  were  the  characteristics  of  this  vindication? 

(1)  Justification  by  faith  was  declared  to  be  mainly  the 
being  “absolved  from  sins,’^  by  a sentence  strictly  forensic,  for 
the  sake  of  Christ’s  righteousness  apprehended  by  faith. 

(2)  Good  works  were  inculcated  as  the  fruits  of  faith,  but 
carefully  denied  any  place  in  the  dogma  of  justification. 

(3)  This  one  truth,  recovered  from  perversion,  was 
n turally  exaggerated  for  a time,  and  too  much  limited  to  the 
forensic  view.  Justification  was  only  imputed  righteousness. 

6.  Wherein  did  the  Reformed  or  Calvinist  doctrine  differ 

from  the  Lutheran  or  Evangelical  ? 

Both  laying  stress  upon  the  imputation  of  Christ’s  righte- 
ousness, the  Calvinist  teachers  held  that  it  was  transferred  in 
all  respects  to  those  who  were  elected  in  Christ : an  eternal 


Personal  Salvation. 


237 


justification  only  applied  in  time,  and  never  to  be  lost.  Hence 
the  Calvinist  teaching  regards  justification  as  no  other  than 
the  pronouncing  a believer  for  ever  freed  from  the  obligation 
of  obedience  as  such. 

7.  What  error  then  must  be  guarded  against  in  respect  to 

the  imputation  of  Christ’s  righteousness  ? 

(1)  That  of  making  His  entire  righteousness  wholly  sub- 
stitutionary (dvrt)  instead  of  partly  beneficial  ( Wp) : it  is 
neither  alone ; but  includes  both,  the  one  idea  always  accom- 
panying and  qualifying  the  other. 

(2)  That  of  dividing  it  into  two  parts:  the  passive, 
reckoned  to  the  believer  as  his  own  satisfaction  to  penal 
justice  ; and  the  active,  reckoned  to  the  believer  as  his  own 
satisfaction  of  the  moral  requirement.  This  distinction 
violates  the  eternal  principles  of  God’s  government;  no  crea- 
ture can  ever  be  discharged  from  obedience. 

(3)  Consequently,  as  has  been  seen  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonement,  it  is  wrong  to  speak  of  Christ’s  righteousness  as 

'directly  imputed.  It  is  rather  to  be  regarded  as  the  all- 
sufficient  ground  of  God’s  mercy  to  the  whole  world  and 
to  every  man. 

8.  But  was  not  Christ’s  righteousness  substitutionary,  see- 

ing that  as  the  Godman  He  was  bound  to  no  obedience 
for  Himself  ? 

It  is  certainly  true  that  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God  was  not 
obedient  for  Himself : He  was  always,  in  life  and  in  death,  a 
Divine  Person.  But  that  very  fact  shows  that  His  righteous- 
ness could  not  be  strictly  vicarious : the  Godman  could  not 
take  the  very  place  of  man  either  in  suffering  or  in  obedience. 

0.  Wliat  new  views  did  Arminianism  introduce  ? 

It  mediated  between  the  Mediaeval  and  the  Protestant 
teaching  : asserting  that  the  faith  which  is  reckoned  for  righte- 
ousness is  a faith  including  obedience,  though  having  no  merit ; 
and  that  God  accepts  the  imperfect  righteousness  of  faith  as 
perfect  for  Christ’s  sake.  Accordingly,  the  law  was  held  to 
have  been  in  some  sense  relaxed  as  to  its  requirements. 


238 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


10.  What  error  is  there  here? 

It  is  better  to  say  that  for  Christ’s  sake,  and  in  Christ, 
God  accepts  the  believer  and  pardons  the  imperfection  of  his 
righteousness  always  until  by  grace  his  conformity  to  law 
is  made  inwardly  complete,  which  it  certainly  must  be. 

11.  How  does  our  Lord’s  suretyship  affect  this? 

He  is  the  general  Mediator  of  the  covenant  (/xecriTT^?)  ; but 
He  is  the  special  Surety  (eyyvog)  or  sponsor  that  its  provisions 
shall  be  carried  out  in  the  interest,  so  to  speak,  of  both  parties. 
For  God  He  pledges  forgiveness  as  to  the  past ; for  man  He 
pledges  a perfect  tribute  to  the  righteousness  of  the  law  in 
the  future.  The  latter  is  too  often  forgotten. 

12.  What  difference  was  there  between  the  Arminian  and 

the  Tridentine  doctrines  of  a gradual  righteousness? 

(1)  Both  held  rightly  that  justification  is  a state  of  man  as 
well  as  an  act  of  God  ; and  that  believers  are  made  more  and 
more  righteous  in  increasing  conformity  with  law. 

(2)  But  the  Arminians  held  that  the  imputation  of 
righteousness  must  always  come  first,  as  faith  embraces  Christ 
for  pardon  ; while  the  Romanists  taught  that  justification  is 
from  the  beginning  the  making  righteous. 

13.  How  are  Antinomianism  and  Supererogation  related  to 

this  subject? 

(1)  Antinomianism  as  a doctrine  makes  Christ  the  end  of 
t&e  law.  For  its  penalty  and  its  demands  He  has  made  Him- 
self responsible.  There  may  be  reasons  for  obedience  in  the 
filial  relation,  but  none  in  the  law  as  a condition  of  life. 

(2)  Supererogatory  works  make  Christ  the  end  of  the  law 
in  another  sense.  While  they  exaggerate  the  importance  of 
obedience  as  the  condition  of  life,  they  dishonour  law  by  divid- 
ing it  into  obligatory  commandments  and  optional  counsels. 

14.  What  was  the  Socinian  or  Unitarian  teaching? 
Rejecting  the  divinity  and  atonement  of  Christ  it  regarded 

the  term  imputation  as  meaning  merely  God’s  merciful  estimate 
of  good  desires  and  good  works  as  all  the  righteousness  He 


Personal  Salvation. 


239 


requires.  He  imputes  in  mercy  to  man  what  man  has  not  : 
repentance  and  honest  endeavour  being  enough. 

15.  Wliat  expedients  have  been  adopted  by  mystical  theology 

to  soften  the  idea  of  imputation  ? 

It  regarded  the  Indwelling  Christ  as  the  formal  cause  of 
justification  : His  righteousness  being  at  once  reckoned  to  the 
believer  as  his  own  and  flowing  into  the  believer’s  life.  The 
being  reckoned  righteous  is  however  almost  lost  in  the  having 
righteousness. 

16.  Eow  may  this  be  set  aside? 

By  saying  that  what  truth  it  has  is  only  a variation  or 
disguise  of  the  twofold  principle  of  the  righteousness  of  faith  : 
Christ  FOR  us  and  Christ  in  us. 

17.  What  is  the  best  defence  of  imputation  ? 

(i)  The  constant  assertion  that  there  must  needs  be 
imputation  of  righteousness  and  non-imputation  of  sin  forever; 
the  eternal  law  can  never  forget  the  past ; (2)  that  the  notion 
of  an  imputed  righteousness  is  never  to  be  separated,  either  in 
doctrine  or  practice,  from  that  of  a righteousness  imparted  ; 
(3)  that  justification  is  more  than  pardon,  being  an  imputation 
of  righteousness  for  Christ’s  sake  which  anticipates  the  future 
and  perfect  reality  of  the  righteousness  which  it  imputes. 


n. 

§ 1.  |3relimmarg. 

1.  What  is  the  full  meaning  of  this  expression? 

It  means  the  Christian  estate  of  grace  as  restoration  to  life 
in  God  and  the  filial  relation  to  Him  as  a Father. 

2.  How  is  it  connected  with  righteousness  and  sanctification  ? 

The  relation  maybe  stated  in  two  ways,  (i)  The  per- 
sonality of  the  sinner  being  the  same  always,  he  must  first 


240 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


have  the  sentence  cancelled  in  justification  before  he  can 
become  an  adopted  child  of  God  and  be  consecrated  to  His 
service.  But  (2)  it  is  the  new  nature  given  him  in  regene- 
ration that  renders  him  capable  of  being  made  righteous  and 
inwardly  pure.  (3)  Thus-  the  former  refers  to  external  privi- 
lege ; and  the  order  is  justification,  adoption,  consecration. 
The  latter  refers  to  internal  possession ; and  the  order  is 
regeneration,  righteousness,  and  sanctification.  But  strictly 
speaking,  these  three  are  one  blessing  of  the  new  covenant 
under  three  aspects. 

3.  What  is  included  in  the  vocabulary  of  the  estate  of  sonship  ? 

All  the  terms  that  introduce  life  as  in  Christ ; as  also 
those  which  define  the  means  of  its  impartation,  the  privileges 
which  it  confers,  its  struggle  with  the  old  nature,  its  perfec- 
tion as  the  restoration  of  the  Divine  image. 

4.  What  then  are  the  two  branches  of  our  present  subject? 

Adoption  as  external  and  declaratory  • regeneration  as 
inwrought  in  the  soul. 

§ 2.  flljopti'on  ant  Regeneration. 

1.  State  the  unity  and  the  difference  of  these  terms. 

They  are  one  as  the  Christian  sonship  ; regeneration 
being  its  internal  reality  and  adoption  its  external  privilege. 

2.  Is  the  distinction  carefully  maintained  in  the  New 

Testament  ? 

No  : for  the  common  sonship  is  defined  sometimes  by  the 
word  sons  (mot),  which  lies  at  the  root  of  adoption  ; and  some- 
times by  the  word  children  (reWa),  which  implies  regeneration. 

3.  Where  is  it  then  to  be  observed  ? 

St.  Paul  alone  combines  the  two  ideas  : Ye  received  the 
spirit  of  adoption^  whereby  we  cry^  Abba^  Father,  The  Spirit 
Rom.viii.15,  Himself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit,,  that  we 
16.  are  children  of  God : and  if  childreji,,  then  heirs. 

Without  the  term  adoption,  we  find  the  distinction  in  St.  John : 


Personal  Salvation. 


241 


To  them  gave  He  the  right  to  become  children  of  God^  . • . which 
were  horn  or  begotten  of  God,  And  again  ; that  ,,  . 
we  shotild  be  CAiAJEiy  children  of  God:  and  such  we  ijohn  iH.  i. 
ARE.  St.  Peter  speaks  of  the  Father  as  having  be-  ^ Peter  1.3, 4. 
gotten  us  again  in  our  regeneration  to  an  inheritance^  which 
is  the  privilege  of  adoption.  Our  Lord  gave  the  two  thoughts 
when  He  said,  speaking  of  sonship,  If  therefore  the  johnviii.36, 
Son  shall  make  you  free^  ye  shall  he  free  indeed.  42. 

This  was  th<j  future  adoption  ; and  when  He  afterwards  added, 
If  God  were  your  Father,^  ye  would  love  Me^  He  referred  to  the 
future  regeneration.  He  had  before  given  an  indirect  note  of 
the  distinction  : Except  a man  be  boi'ii  anew^  he 
cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God. 

4.  But  does  not  the  Spirit  Who  imparts  the  spirit  of  adop- 
tion, shedding  abroad  a sense  of  the  Father’s  love  in 
the  heart,  thereby  produce  the  new  life  ? 

St.  Paul  does  not  establish  this  order  ; he  rather  in- 
verts it.  The  spirit  of  adoption  is  given  to  the  Rom.  vm. 
regenerate.  ^5* 

6.  What  is  the  highest  tribute  paid  to  this  twofold  privilege  ? 

Believers  are  said  to  be  of  God  foreordained  to  be  con- 
formed to  the  image  of  His  Son.,  that  He  might  be  the 
Firstborn  among  many  brethren  ; and  unto  adoption  29.’ 
as  sons  thi'ough  Jesus  Christ  unto  Himself.  W e are 
said  to  be  foreordained  only  to  this  fellowship  with  the  Eternal 
Son  and  with  the  Only-Begotten : there  is  no  higher,  no 
other,  predestination. 


§ 3.  iUrgenerattott. 

1.  What  is  the  grace  of  regeneration  ? 

The  Divine  act  which  imparts  to  the  penitent  believer 
the  new  and  higher  life  in  personal  union  with  Christ. 

2.  How  is  this  blessing  of  the  new  covenant  described  ? 

In  a large  variety  of  ways,  which  require  to  be  classified 
and  studied.  The  several  definitions  refer  to  the  Divine  act 
or  its  effect ; particularly,  however,  as  the  gift  of  life  in  Christ. 

3.  Who  is  the  Divine  Agent  in  regeneration? 

Specially  the  Holy  Spirit  : that  which  is  born  of  johniiLS. 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


242 


the  Spirit  is  spirit.  But  each  Person  of  the  Trinity,  and 
God  generally,  is  said  to  be  the  author  of  the 
1^21.  life. 

4.  What  analogy  does  this  suggest  between  the  incarnation 

and  onr  regeneration  ? 

The  Incarnate  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God ; yet  the  Word 
became  flesh  and  taketh  hold  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  ; while  it 
Luke  i.  35.  vvas  Said  of  the  mother  of  our  Lord,  That  which  is 
John  i.  14.  conceived  in  her  is  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Three 
Matt.  i. 20.  Persons  are  here  also. 

5.  In  what  way  is  the  Divine  act  most  frequently  described  ? 

Chiefly  by  terms  expressing  the  generation  of  a new  life  ; 
which  is  sometimes  also  regarded  as  a new  creation. 

6*  How  may  the  terms  of  generation  be  classified? 

(1)  God  is  He  that  begat ; in  the  regenerate  His  seed 

1 johnv  I abideth ; and,  in  one  remarkable  passage,  we  read.  Of 
ijokniii.g.  His  owii  wUl  He  brought  us  for th.^  ox  gave  us  birth 

^ (aTTCKVTjcrev). 

(2)  Conversely,  the  believer  has  been  or  is  begotten  of  God, 

John  ^1%^*  born  of  the  Spirit  {iK  emphatically  in  both)  and 

johniii!/.  bojm  aiiew  (or,  as  it  may  be  translated, above). 

(3)  But  these  passages  do  not  indicate  any  distinction  of 
time  between  the  begetting  and  the  being  born  ; they  give  us 
generally  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Birth. 

7.  What  is  the  special  importance  of  these  testimonies  ? 
They  establish  the  following  points : 

(1)  That,  whatever  man  may  do  through  prevenient  grace 
to  prepare  himself,  the  new  birth  is  the  act  of  Divine  omnipo- 
jas.  i.  18.  tence  : Of  His  own  wilf  and  by  the  word  of  truth. 

(2)  That  the  new  birth,  being  of  God,  and  making  us 

2 P t ' partakers  of  the  Divine  nature.,  is  the  highest  dignity, 

^ ^ ‘ indeed  the  only  peculiarity,  of  the  Christian  covenant. 

(3)  That  it  is  indispensably  necessary,  as  distinguished 
from  the  birth  of  nature : Not  of  blood.,  nor  of  the  will  of  the 
John  i.  13.  flesh.,  but  of  God ; and  of  sinful  nature  : That  which 
johniii.  6.  bom  of  the  flesh  is  flesh and  that  which  is  born  of 
the  Spirit  is  spirit. 

(4)  That,  therefore,  it  is  the  necessity  of  every  man.  Our 


Jas.  i 
Eph. 
John 


Personal  Salvation. 


243 


Saviour’s  first  testimonies,  and  St.  John’s  last,  alike  lay  the  stress 
on  the  individual.  Sn  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  in. 8,7. 
Spirit^  and  Ye  must  bebo^ni  anew:  Set  v/xas,  an  expression  ^ John  v.  12. 
of  deep  solemnity  in  every  instance  of  the  Redeemer’s  use  of  it. 

8.  But  none  of  these  passages  connect  regeneration  directly 
with  Christ : how  is  this  life  related  to  Him  ? 

Everywhere  and  at  all  points,  as  New-Testament  revelation 
advances.  Our  Lord  called  Himself  the  Life  generally  John  xiv.  6. 
and  specifically  with  reference  to  the  resurrection.  John  xi.  25. 
Both  He  and  His  Apostles,  however,  connect  the  life  of  re- 
generation with  His  Person  in  various  ways,  as  follows  : 

(1)  The  new  life  is  begun,  nourished,  made  permanent,  and 

consummated  through  union  with  Christ  by  faith.  I ^ 

am  the  Vine^ye  are  the  branches.  Except  ye  eat  the  johnvi.  53. 
flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  His  bloody  ye  have  Oohnv.  12. 
no  life  in  you.  He  that  hath  the  Son^  hath  the  life.  The 
mystical  union  of  the  Incarnate  Son  with  his  spirit  is  the  con- 
summate life  of  the  believer : Christ  liveth  in  mc^  this 

being  the  life  of  justification  also.  ^ 

(2)  The  term  quickening  connects  the  new  life  with  our 
Saviour’s  resurrection,  and  that  in  two  senses  ; (i)  as  our  Lord 
had  power  to  raise  Himself  from  death.  He  in  that  power 
quicke7ieth  whom  He  will ; (2)  as  believers  are  united 
generally  with  Christ,  their  union  is  with  His  death 

and  life  : If  we  died  with  Him^  we  believe  that  we  shall 
also  live  with  Him ; (3)  but  in  this  quickening,  the  life  of  re- 
generation is  hardly  to  be  separated  in  any  passage  from  the  life 
of  justification:  And  you  did  He  quicken^  whejt  ye 
were  dead  through  your  trespasses  and  sins.  There-  ^ 
fore  they  are  subordinate  as  definitions. 

(3)  The  terms  of  new  creation  vary  the  idea  : If  any  man  is 

in  Christ.^  he  is  a new  creature.  Christians  are  Godls  2 Cor.  v.  17. 
workma7iship,  created  m Ch7'ist  Jes7is  for  good  works,  ^3- 

Thus  the  individual  is  created  as  one  member  of  a new  humanity. 

(4)  The  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  conformed  to  this 
truth.  He  is  never  said  to  be  the  author  of  the  new 

life  save  as  i7i  Christ  Jesus,  or  as  revealing  Christ  2 Cor.  111.17. 
within  the  soul,  the  Lord  Who  is  the  Spirit  and  the 
life-giving  Spirit. 

(5)  Lastly,  the  indwelling  of  the  Son,  through  the  Holy 
11* 


244 


T he  Spirit's  A dministration. 


Spirit,  is  the  indwelling  of  God  ; and  this  is  therefore  the  greatest 
word  on  regeneration,  uniting  in  one  all  that  has  been  said.  I in 
johnxvii.23.  Thou  m Me  ; after  which  God ahideth  in  him 

1 John  iv.  15.  and  he  in  God : God  in  the  Son  by  the  Holy  Spirit 

9.  Are  there  not  other  ways  of  defining  regeneration  ? 

(1)  There  are  many  which  serve  rather  to  illustrate  than 
to  define  the  new  life,  or  which  refer  rather  to  the  effects  of 
regeneration  than  to  regeneration  itself.  Such  are  the  illumina- 

^ ^ tion  of  the  soul,  the  circumcision  of  Christ,  and  in  a 

Col.  ii.  II.  certain  sense  the  new  creation.  1 he  one  and  only  real 

2 Cor.  V.  17.  definition  is  the  new  life  in  Christ  Jesus,  or  Christ  the 
new  life  of  the  spirit  : all  others  lead  up  to  this  and  demand  it. 

(2)  There  are  some  which  refer  rather  to  the  growth  of 

the  new  nature  than  to  that  beginning  of  it  which  is  regenera- 
2 Cor.  iv.  16.  proper.  inward  man  is  renewed  day  by  day ^ 

Coi.iii.io  into  the  lost  image  of  God  ; the  new  man  which  is 
being  renewed.  Regeneration  and  Renewal  must  be  thus 
distinguished. 

10.  What  is  the  relation  of  the  inward  man  to  the  new  man 

in  regeneration  ? 

(1)  The  former  is  man  in  his  spiritual  relations  as  dis- 
tinguished from  his  physical.  St.  Paul  once  speaks  of  it  as 

unregenerate  : I delight  in  the  law  of  God  after  the 
Eph  m.M!’  7nan.  Again  he  speaks  of  the  same  as  re- 

newed gradually  or  habitually  : strengthened  with 
power  through  His  Spirit  in  the  inward  man.  Thus  the  inward 
man  is  the  permanent  subject. 

(2)  The  new  man  (Kaivoi)  is  the  regenerate  nature,  as  such, 
once  put  on  after  putting  off  the  old  man  ; chiefly,  however,  as 
Eph.  iv.  24.  gradually  being  renewed  (vc'09)  after  the  image  of  II im 
Col.  iii.  10.  that  created  him.  The  former  marks  the  change, 
the  latter  the  newness. 

11.  What  are  the  relations  of  regeneration  to  the  order  of 

grace  and  other  privileges  ? 

These  have  been  already  alluded  to  ; but  a few  things  may 
be  added  the  importance  of  which  is  very  great. 

(i)  As  to  the  Christian  life  generally,  regeneration  takes 
the  middle  place  between  the  life  of  release  from  condemnation 
and  the  life  everlasting  which  follows  the  resurrection. 


Personal  Salvation. 


245 


(2)  As  to  preliminary  grace,  regeneration  is  not  merely  its 
full  development,  but  a new  gift  of  life  in  Christ,  for  which 
that  grace  only  prepares  : the  preparation  may  be  mistaken  for 
the  gift,  inasmuch  as  it  shows  many  signs  of  a life  cf  its  own. 

(3)  As  to  original  sin,  regeneration  brings  entire  freedom 
from  its  power  : F'or  the  lazv  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in 

Christ  Jesus  7iiade  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and 
death. 

(4)  To  justification  and  sanctification  it  is  related  as  new 
life  is  related  to  the  righteousness  and  holiness  of  that  life. 

(5)  It  is  the  substratum  of  all  ethics,  which  are  in  this 
relation  viewed  as  the  growth  of  the  new  man,  or  fruits  of  a 
new  nature,  or  the  gradual  renewal  into  the  original  image  of 
God  lost  or  defaced  through  sin. 

12.  Wliat  are  the  conditions  and  means  of  regeneration  ? 

(1)  The  preliminary  grace  of  repentance  and  faith,  used 
under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  is  the  condition. 

(2)  The  efficient  cause  is  the  Spirit  using  the  Word  of  God. 

(3)  The  sacraments  are  the  seals  and  pledges  of  the  new 
life;  Baptism  of  its  bestowment,  and  the  Eucharist  of  its  con- 
tinuance and  increase.  Channels,  strictly  speaking,  they  are  not. 

(4)  But  the  formal  cause  is  the  formation  of  Christ  in 
the  soul  as  the  principle  and  element  of  its  new  life. 

§ 4. 

1.  What  is  the  theological  meaning  ot  this  word? 

It  is  used  by  St.  Paul  to  express  the  privileges  to  which 
regeneration  under  the  new  covenant  introduces  believers,  as 
they  are  children  of  God. 

2.  Does  it  not  indicate  the  manner  in  which  they  become 

children  ? 

The  term  mo^ecr/a,  or  adoptio,  meant  in  ordinary  usage  a 
man's  taking  into  the  household  children  not  born  of  him. 
But  this  meaning  seems  to  be  lost  in  that  of  the  filial  privilege. 
Those  whom  God  adopts  are  really  born  of  God^  not 
merely  supposed  to  be  ; and  in  fact  our  Father  in 
Christ  is  never  said  to  adopt ; there  is  no  verb  “ adopt  ” corre- 
sponding to  “ beget.^^ 


The  Spirit's  Administration, 


245 


3.  What  are  the  special  privileges  of  the  adoption  ? 

The  prerogatives  which  distinguish  those  who  are  children 
of  God  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  from  the  world  generally 
and  from  the  members  of  the  old  covenant.  These  are  : 

(1)  Membership  in  the  kingdom  of  God^  which  none  but 
the  regenerate  can  see  or  e^iter  into.  This  is  the  household  of 

...  God,  The  Israel  of  the  ancient  theocracy  were  elected 

5.  into  It  as  a nation  ; and  of  them  St.  Paul  says  Whose 

Rom.\x.^4.  adoptio7i^  as  Jehovah  had  said  Israel  is  My  so7i^ 

Gai'ui^26  My  first-born.  But  the  election  from  the  world 

’ * * is  now  individual  : Ye  are  all — in  the  sense  of  each 

— S071S  of  God,,  through  faith  in  Jesus  CIi7'ist,  The  elect  are 

no  other  than  these. 

(2)  The  blessing  of  filial  confidence  towards  God  : Ye 

received  the  spirit  of  adoptio7t^  whereby  we  cry^  Abba,,  Father, 
Rom.  viii.  Spirit  Hhus  elf  bear  etli  witness  with  our  spirit  that 

15. 16.  ii)e  are  childre7t  of  God,  The  regenerate  has  a spirit 
of  adoption  that  always  holds  communion  with  a Father  ; and 
the  Holy  Spirit  confirms  this  ordinarily  by  His  secret  witness. 

(3)  Freedom  from  the  bondage  of  the  law.  It  is  the 
privilege  of  the  fuhiess  of  the  thne  that  the  Son  was  sent  forth 

that  He  might  redeem  them  which  were  uiider  the  law,, 
a.iv. 4, 5.  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons.  The 

application  is  wider  than  to  the  old  economy.  There  is  liberty 
from  the  condemnation  of  any  law,  and  liberty  from  the 
bondage  of  our  own  impotence.  This  freedom  is  deliverance 
Gal  V 18  from  being  under  the  law  as  written  without. 
Us’i.*25.’  Christians  are  under  the  peifect  law,  the  law  of 
Heb.  X.  16.  liberty,  which  is  put  on  their  heart  and  written  upon 
their  mind  also.  There  is  no  limit  to  this  freedom. 

(4)  The  sons  of  God  have  a special  relation  to  the  Incar- 
nate Son,  which  is  the  glory  of  their  estate.  As  children  of  His 

Father  He  is  7iot  ashamed  to  call  them  brethren, 
Heb.  11.  II.  regeneration  links  them  with  the  Only- 

Begotten  ; their  adoption  with  the  Eternal  Son.  The  privilege 
is  the  possession  of  Christ’s  Spirit  in  this  life,  the  pledge  and 
means  of  deliverance  from  all  sin  ; and  in  the  life  %o  come  the 

...  transformation  of  their  bodies  co7iformed  to  the  body 
Rom.  viii.  of  H IS  glory ,'  that  IS,  the  adoptioii,  to  wit,  the  redemp^ 
iio7i  of  our  body. 


Personal  Salvation. 


247 


(5)  Their  sonship  gives  them  a title  to  the  Inheritance, 
which  is  finally  and  supremely  God  Himself, — they  4. 

are  heirs  of  God — and  subordinately  the  manifold  Rom.  viii. 
privileges  of  the  Christian  covenant  consummated  in 
heaven. 


§ 5.  liiston'cal. 

1.  What  has  been  the  current  of  doctrine  on  this  subject  ? 

The  teaching  of  the  Christian  Church  has  been  generally 
faithful  to  one  principle:  that  Christianity  has  brought  a new 
life  to  man  through  Jesus  Christ.  But  as  to  the  nature  of 
that  life  and  the  means  of  its  bestowment  there  have  been 
many  wide  and  persistent  differences. 

2.  Sum  up  the  errors  as  to  its  nature. 

They  have  been  two  chiefly : that  which  has  regarded  it 
as  only  the  improvement  of  man’s  own  natural  estate,  and  that 
which  has  held  it  to  be  imparted  without  regard  to  any  con- 
currence of  human  preparation. 

3.  What  was  the  extreme  representative  of  the  former  ? 

Pelagianism,  which,  denying  original  sin,  made  the  renewal 
of  human  nature  a matter  of  Christian  discipline  only. 

4.  And  what  have  been  its  modifications? 

The  error  may  be  traced  through  semi-Pelagianism,  which 
taught  that  man’s  power  was  only  weakened  through  the  fall, 
down  to  the  modern  teachers  who  assert  that  regeneration  is 
the  choice  of  the  human  will  directed  to  good,  and  the  right 
exercise  of  our  own  faculties  under  the  influence  of  grace. 

5.  Where  has  the  latter  error  been  found? 

In  Predestinarianism,  from  Augustine  downward,  which 
has  maintained  that  regeneration  is  the  first  saving  act  of 
the  Spirit  in  the  soul  of  man  : an  act  sovereign  ; effectual  in 
the  fruits  of  repentance,  faith,  and  holiness  ; and  never  to 
be  undone  or  lost  after  being  truly  experienced. 

6.  Where  is  the  Scriptural  medium  between  these  ? 

Sought  darkly  in  semi-Pelagianism,  it  was  found  in  the 
Synergism  of  Lutheran  theology,  but  still  more  clearly  in  the 


248 


The  SpiriVs  Administration. 


doctrine  of  a prevenient  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  prepares 
for  perfect  life  in  Christ  Jesus.  This  life  is  then  given  through 
..  the  same  Spirit  to  the  faith  which  is  at  once  wrought 
o . 11.12.  rests  on  l/ie  working  of  God. 

7.  What  less  prevalent  errors  may  he  mentioned? 

(1)  The  ancient  Gnostic  heresy,  still  found  in  its  subtle 
influence,  that  the  spirit  in  man  was  not  affected  by  sin,  and 
that  the  sensuous  soul  only  is  renewed. 

(2)  The  modern  theory  that  regeneration  is  itself  the  gift 
of  a spirit  through  the  Spirit;  here,  as  the  opposite  of  the 
former,  the  loss  of  the  spirit  is  held  to  have  been  the  effect 
of  sin,  which  virtually  reduced  man  to  mere  body  and  soul. 

8.  How  may  these  he  refuted  together  ? 

Regeneration  is  the  spirit  of  new  life  imparted  by  the 
Spirit  to  the  entire  personality  and  nature  of  man. 

9.  Is  there  no  other  error  akin  to  these  ? 

That  of  those  v/ho  suppose  the  Holy  Spirit  to  give  such 
an  ascendency  to  the  renewed  spirit  that  no  sin  remains  in  the 
regenerate,  supposed  to  preserve  his  union  with  Christ. 

10.  How  is  this  condemned  ? 

By  the  Apostle's  testimony  that  the  flesh  liLsteth  against 
the  Spirit^  and  the  Spirit  (the  Holy  Spirit  in  our  spirit,  or  our 
spirit  unaer  the  Holy  Spirit)  \Justeth']  against  the 

Gal.  V.  17. 

11.  But  does  not  this  answer  do  away  with  the  difference 

between  the  state  of  conviction  or  conversion  and  that 
of  regeneration  ? 

No  ; in  the  state  of  preliminary  grace  the  conflict  is 
between  the  flesh  and  the  law  of  my  mind  still  in  bondage  ; 
Rom.vii.  23.  the  state  of  regeneration  it  is  between  the  flesh 
Rom.  viii.  2.  and  the  Spirit  who  makes  free  from  the  law  of  sin 
and  of  death. 

12.  What  two  mistakes  must  he  guarded  against  ? 

Setting  the  standard  of  regeneration  too  high  or  too  low. 

13.  How  are  these  to  he  avoided  ? 

(i)  By  remembering  that  in  the  regenerate  life  the  old 


Personal  Salvation. 


249 


man  has  yet  to  be  mortified,  and  the  new  man  to  grow  up  to 
perfection  ; that  this  life  like  all  life  has  its  stages. 

(2)  By  remembering  that  the  regenerate  estate  is  described 
in  a number  of  definitions  which  all  have  their  unity  in  the 
indwelling  of  Christ.  The  begetting,  the  seed,  the  quickening, 
the  birth,  must  all  be  explained  of  the  one  blessing,  the 
newness  of  life  in  the  fellowship  of  the  Holy  Trinity  Rom.  vi.  4. 
through  the  Son.  It  pleased  God  to  reveal  His  Gai.i.  15,17 
Son  in  me, 

14.  What  errors  have  been  held  as  to  the  means  or  instru- 

mentalities of  regeneration  ? 

First  of  all  that  Avhich  makes  the  incarnation  as  such  the 
means  : it  is  not  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  that  the  descendants 
of  the  first  iVdam  are  either  justified  or  regenerate  or  sanctified 
through  the  virtue  of  the  Second  Adam.  If  any 
man  be  in  Christ  he  is  a new  creature.  The  free  ^ 
gift  abounds  unto  the  many  as  a race,  but  it  must  be  in- 
dividually applied. 

15.  And  what  errors  have  been  prevalent  as  to  its  connec- 

tion with  baptism  ? 

Too  much  stress  has  been  laid  upon  this  sacrament  as  the 
ordained  and  only  means  of  regenerating  grace  : the  germ  of 
this  is  seen  in  the  early  fathers,  its  full  development  in  the 
mediaeval  church,  and  many  of  the  formularies  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, especially  the  Lutheran  and  Anglican,  retain  its  traces. 

16.  What  is  the  defence  against  this  error  as  it  respects 

regeneration  in  particular? 

(1)  It  should  be  remembered  that  baptism  is  the  seal  of 
all  the  blessings  of  the  covenant,  and  not  of  the  new  birth 
apart  and  alone  ; the  term  baptismal  may  as  well  be  applied 
to  justification  and  sanctification  as  to  regeneration. 

(2)  Scripture  connects  the  new  birth  with  baptism,  which 

Is  its  ordained  seal  and  pledge  ; but  the  covenant  ^ 
seal  may  assure  the  believer  of  a past  fact,  of  a Acts  xxii.  16. 
present  gift,  or  of  a blessing  yet  to  come.  Union  38. 

with  Christ  is  symbolised  in  this  sacrament,  which  however  is, 
like  circumcision,  of  no  avail  apart  from  faith.  In  Christianity 
there  is  no  grace  “ ex  opere  operate,’’  or  dependent  on  official 
acts. 


250 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


17.  How  are  the  Lutheran,  Anglican  and  Presbyterian  for- 

mularies, which  assert  the  regeneration  of  infants  in 
baptism,  evangelically  explained  ? 

(1)  Some  contend  that  as  children  are  capable  of  the 
infection  of  original  sin,  they  are  also  capable  of  the  Spirit’s 
grace  in  infancy : these  two  being  necessarily  correlative. 

(2)  The  Lutherans  further  plead  that  the  regeneration  of 
infants  is  the  new-begetting,  while  the  future  voluntary  union 
with  Christ  is  the  new  birth. 

(3)  Those  who  hold  the  Westminster  Confession  assume 
that  in  the  case  of  elect  children  the  grace  of  the  new  life  is 
sealed  and  conveyed  in  the  sacrament  of  baptism. 

(4)  It  is  very  commonly  held  that  the  term  regeneration 
as  applied  to  infants  refers  rather  to  the  outward  privileges  of 
sonship  than  to  any  regenerating  grace  conferred  on  them. 
This  was  a very  prevalent  view  in  the  early  church. 

18.  But  may  cliildren  be  said  to  be  capable  of  receiving 

regenerating  grace? 

It  is  enough  to  plead  for  them  that  they  are  adopted  into 
the  family  of  God  and  church  of  Christ.  The  inward  work 
of  the  Christian  Sonship  waits  for  their  conscious  acceptance  of 
the  Lord.  They  receive  the  grace  which  prepares  for  regenera- 
tion, even  as  it  prepares  for  righteousness  in  union  with  Him. 


III. 

§^risftan  ^rtucfificatton. 

§ 1.  Sanrtiticati'ou. 

1.  What  do  we  mean  by  Christian  sanctification? 

The  whole  estate  of  believers  as  they  are  made  partakers 
of  Divine  holiness  and  consecrated  to  the  fellowship  and  service 
of  God  through  the  Mediator. 

2.  How  is  this  related  to  the  two  former  estates? 

Righteousness  regards  the  regenerate  as  conformed  to  the 
law  of  God  and  sanctification  as  conformed  to  the  Divine 


Personal  Salvation. 


251 


nature.  In  other  words  the  new  life  is  in  the  former  set 
right  with  law,  and  in  the  latter  is  united  with  God  Himself. 

3.  Is  sanctification,  then,  only  a distinct  branch,  of  the 

common  Christian  privilege? 

In  one  sense  it  must  be  studied  as  such.  But  in  another 
it  covers  the  whole  ground,  and  all  religion  may  be  expressed 
in  terms  of  sanctification.  For  the  regenerate  life  is  the  Spirit 
of  holiness  in  the  nature,  making  regeneration  and  sanctifica- 
tion really  one  ; while  our  sanctification  is  the  will  ^ 
of  God  as  expressed  in  law,  and  our  being  cleansed  3* 
from  all  unrighteousiiess  and  kept  blameless.  The 
three  are  profoundly  one. 

4.  How  is  this  further  illustrated  by  the  terminology  ? 

All  the  terms  of  sanctification — such  as  consecration  to 
God,  purification  from  sin,  holiness,  with  many  expressing  the 
means  by  which  these  are  attained  and  their  relations  to  each 
other — were  used  in  the  Old  Testament  to  describe  the  full 
covenant  lelations  of  Jehovah  with  His  people,  especially  as 
He  was  manifested  in  His  temple.  They  are  all  hallowed 
afresh  in  Christ,  with  a deeper  meaning  and  with  the  same 
comprehensiveness  of  range. 

5.  How  with  a deeper  meaning  ? 

(1)  Sanctification — whether  as  washing  or  laying  on  the 
altar — was  in  the  Levitical  economy  chiefly,  though  not 
wholly,  external  for  the  purifying  of  the  flesh  and  keeping  the 
people  as  such  dedicated  to  God.  In  the  New 
Testament  Ye  shall  be  holy!  never  rests  short  of  iP^ten.  15, 
interior  union  with  God  : As  He  which  called  you 

is  holy^  be  ye  yourselves  also  holy  in  all  manner  of  living. 
Holiness  is  impressed  on  the  entire  nature. 

(2)  Moreover,  in  the  new  covenant,  righteousness  and  the 
new  life  in  Christ  throw  their  deep  meaning  on  sanctification. 

6.  What  are  the  two  leading  ideas  in  holiness  ? 

Separation  from  sin  and  unto  God  ; these  being  neces- 
sarily one,  but  by  equal  necessity  viewed  as  distinct,  though 
not  to  be  divided  in  time.  The  one  must  imply  the  other. 


252 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


7.  Is  not  holiness  the  internal  quality  as  shown  in  a holy 

life  and  character? 

Yes,  when  viewed  in  the  ethics  of  Christianity  : we  now 
consider  it  only  or  chiefly  as  the  application  of  the  atonement 
by  the  Spirit. 

8.  But  is  not  the  external  or  objective  application  of  the 

atonement  our  justification  ? 

Yes,  as  the  atonement  is  an  obedience  offered  to  justice  ; 
but  as  it  is  a sacrifice  of  expiation  its  application  is  both  our 
external  and  our  internal  sanctification. 

9.  Are  there  two  classes  of  terms  for  this  external  and 

internal  sanctification  ? 

The  terms  are  not  sharply  defined  any  more  than  in  external 
and  internal  righteousness  and  sonship.  ‘Ayta^civ,  to  sanctify 
or  hallow  to  God,  embraces  both  ; so  does  KaOapiC^w^  to  cleanse 
or  purify  ; and  dytacr/xd?,  sanctification,  like  dytos,  saint,  unites 
the  two.  But  the  external  and  internal  meanings  of  all  these 
terms  are  almost  always  actually  or  virtually  blended. 

10.  How  may  we  sum  up  this  before  we  proceed  ? 

We  must  remember  that  the  estate  of  the  Christian,  in  the 
inmost  sanctuary  of  the  new  covenant,  is  both  an  external  status 
or  position,  and  an  internal  condition  or  character.  As  a child 
of  God  he  has  the  real  new  life  and  is  in  a state  of  sonship  ; 
as  righteous  he  is  in  the  state  of  justification  and  has  the  law 
written  on  his  heart ; as  sanctified  to  God,  his  state  is  that  of 
a consecrated  person  and  his  quality  or  inward  condition  is 
that  of  purity.  But  the  external  in  all  these  gives  him  his 
name  : he  is  a justified  and  consecrated  son  of  God. 

11.  It  follows  then  that  all  who  are  regenerate  and  justified 

are  sanctified  also  ? 

Most  assuredly.  They  have,  through  that  common  grace, 
acceptance  as  pardon  at  the  bar,  acceptance  as  the  adoption  of 
sons,  and  acceptance  on  the  altar  as  the  consecrated  property 
and  servants  of  God : in  all  these  senses  they  have  the  grace 
Eph.  L 6.  which  He  freely  bestowed  on  us  in  the  Beloved, 


Personal  Salvation. 


253 


§ 2.  ^anttification  aa  ©arternal. 

1.  Have  we  any  instances  of  the  external  or  objective 

application  in  Scripture  ? 

(i)  Whatever  is  set  apart  from  common  to  sacred  use  is 
said  to  be  sanctified  : as  time  in  the  Sabbath  ; place  in  the 
temple  and  city  of  Zion  ; and  everything  laid  on  the  altar  //la^ 
sanctifieth  the  gift.  (2)  The  holy  Name,  or  Christ  Matt,  xxiii. 
as  Lord,  is  to  be  hallowed,  as  already  holy,  in  the  Matt.  vi.  9. 
human  heart.  (3)  The  persons  of  believers  are  holy  i Peter  iii. 
as  separated  from  the  world.  i Peter  n.  9. 

2.  Does  this  last  illustration  hold  good  ? 

Christians  are  called  saints  (aytot,  saints),  just  as  they  are 
called  children  of  God  and  righteous,  apart  from  their  internal 
character,  although  it  is  the  supposition  of  that  internal 
character  which  justifies  the  name.  Christians  are  sanctified  in 
Christ  Jesus^  called  to  he  saints  : TO  be  is  not  in 
the  text,  but  it  represents  the  truth.  God  makes  us  ^ 
what  He  reputes  us  to  be. 

To  sanctify  to  God  being  the  Divine  term,  what  is  the 
corresponding  human  ? 

We  dedicate  to  God,  present  at  the  altar,  consecrate  in 
intention,  what  only  the  Holy  Spirit  sanctifies  to  God. 

4.  Then  external  sanctification  is  the  consecration  by  the 
Spirit  of  what  man  presents  ? 

The  sinner  conscious  of  defilement  offers  himself  to  God 
and  is  accepted  for  the  sake  of  the  atonement  he  pleads  ; that 
acceptance  is  his  cleansing  from  sin  or  sanctification. 

6.  Is  this  the  same  as  pardon  and  adoption? 

Yes  : SiKaLovv  or  justify  in  the  court,  is  KaOapi^cLv  or  cleanse 
in  the  temple.  So  the  accepted  worshipper  in  the  temple  is 
the  son  in  the  house  and  before  the  bar  he  is  justified. 

6.  How  is  sin  viewed  in  this  connection  ? 

As  defilement  or  spot  (macula) : that  uncleanness  or  vile- 
ness which  God  hateth,  because  it  is  not  like  His  own  nature. 
In  external  sanctification  He  does  not  see  that  spot  or  take 


254 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


account  of  it  ; just  as  in  justification  He  does  not  reckon  the 
offence.  The  atonement  has  shown  why. 


7.  What  terms  express  the  application  of  the  atonement? 

Terms  derived  from  the  old  economy  : sprinkling  the 
blood,  cleansing  the  conscience,  washing  from  iniquity,  purify- 
ing the  heart  or  purging  the  conscience. 


8. 


Sprinkling  and  washing  may  be  external : 
and  purifying  be  so  too  ? 


can  cleansing 


In  such  passages  as  Purifying  their  heart  by  faith ; The 
blood  of  Jesus  His  Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin  ; Cleanse  your 
Acts  XV  9 hands^ye  sinners — the  same  word  KaSapi^eiv  is  used, 
I John  i.  7.  and  must  have  an  external  rather  than  an  internal 
jas.  IV.  8.  meaning.  But  purging  and  purifying  are  commonly 
used  rather  of  the  internal  work. 


9.  In  what  sense  is  the  conscience  said  to  be  purged? 

The  conscience  of  guilt  is  also  the  conscience  of  defile- 
ment. When  the  offering  of  Christ  is  said  to  purge  (01 
cleanse)  our  conscience  from  dead  works^  the  meaning 
e . IX.  14.  believer’s  heart  is  delivered  from  the  sense 

of  both  guilt  and  of  defilement  from  which  dead  works  could 
not  deliver,  to  serve  the  living  God.  It  may  be  added  that  the 
old  judicial  term — expurgation  from  guilt — helps  us  to  under- 
stand this  external  purging  of  the  conscience.  Another  and 
stronger  word  is  used  by  the  Apostle  when  the  more  internal 
I Cor  V cleansing  is  meant:  Purge  out  the  old  leaven 
I or.  V.  7.  (^i^KaOdpari)  from  the  church. 

10.  Then  we  are  sanctified  to  the  service  of  God  ? 
Sanctification  negatively  is  cleansing  from  sin,  positively 

it  is  consecration  to  God^s  fellowship  and  possession.  The 
former,  that  is  communion  with  God,  belongs  rather  to  internal 
sanctification  ; the  latter,  that  is  the  being  set  apart  to  Divine 
use,  belongs  rather  to  external  or  objective  sanctification. 

11.  In  what  sense  is  Christ  made  unto  us  sanctification? 
He  is  made  unto  us  aytao'/x.os,  not  dyuoo-vvrj : our  sanctifica 

tion  to  God  by  Himself,  not  our  inward  holiness.  Of  the  latter 
He  is  the  indirect  source,  as  He  accomplishes  our  holiness  by 


Personal  Salvation. 


255 


His  Spirit  and  with  our  co-operation  ; of  the  former,  as  of  our 
justification,  He  is  the  direct  source  and  only  ground.  Thus  we 
have  a justifying  and  a sanctifying  God  in  Christ  alone. 

§ 3.  .Sanctification  as  Internal. 

1.  What  are  the  evidences  that  sanctification  is  an  internal 

process  running  parallel  with  the  external  ? 

Those  passages  which  represent  it  as  progressive  and 
perfected ; and  some  words  which  have  an  interior  meaning. 

2.  Is  outward  consecration  spoken  of  otherwise  ? 

Throughout  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  things  and 
persons  dedicated  to  God  are  regarded  as  His  through  one  act 
of  giving  and  receiving  on  the  altar,  the  altar  that  xxiii. 

sanctifieth  the  gift.  It  is  an  acceptance  once  for  all.  i9- 

8.  Is  there  a change  of  phrase  to  denote  the  distinction 
between  external  and  internal  sanctification  ? 

Generally,  there  is  not  ; but  the  construction  of  the  words 
and  the  context  show  the  difference  with  sufficient  clearness. 

4.  Give  some  illustrations  of  this. 

(1)  Our  Lord  is  said  to  have  once  made  purification  (f 
sins^  and  to  have  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  j ^ 
Himself : both  these  terms  include  the  provision  for  Heb,  ix.  26. 
the  outward  and  inward  application  of  His  sacrifice. 

(2)  Hence  cleansing  and  washing  and  purifying  are  used 
of  both  ; but  Wash  away  my  sins  refers  rather  to 

the  external  putting  away  of  sin,  while  Wash  me  Ps.  li.  2. 
throughly  from  mine  iniquity  and  Cleanse  us  from  Oohm.  9. 
all  unrighteousness^  seem  also  to  carry  the  process  into  the 
inner  man. 

5.  Where  have  we  the  process  and  the  end  of  sanctification 

combined  ? 

Let  us  cleanse  ourselves  from  all  defilement  of  flesh  a7td 
spirit^  perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear  of  God : here 
holiness  is  the  end  or  tcAos,  and  cleansing  the  process 
which,  though  not  precisely  as  gradual  here,  aims  at  it.  And 
the  saints  are  spoken  of  as  dyta^d/xcvoc,  those  who  are 
in  course  of  sanctification.  Heb.  x.  14. 


256 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


6.  Do  not  these  passages  connect  sanctification  with  ethical 

duty  and  personal  discipline  ? 

Yes  : it  is  remarkable  that  the  word  cleanse  or  purify, 
strictly  appropriate  only  to  the  Spirit’s  work,  should  be 
assigned  to  man’s  act.  But  so  it  is  ; and  everywhere  our 
gradual  sanctification  is  bound  up  with  our  Christian  discipline. 

7.  But  are  there  no  words  which  belong  only  to  internal 

or  subjective  sanctification? 

(i)  The  adjective  pure  or  clean  has  an  interior  meaning  : 
Blessed  are  the  pure  in  hea^'t,  (2)  Another  verb  is  also  used, 
Matt.  V.  8.  ayvL^€Lv^  which  goes  to  the  inmost  nature  : Every  one 
I John  iii.  3.  that  hath  this  hope  set  07i  Him^  purifieth  himself  even 
as  He  is  pure.  Observe  that  to  the  Lord  Himself  the  words 
that  denote  internal  purification  are  never  applied.  ‘Ayvds 
here  is  a peculiarity. 

8.  What  is  meant  by  entire  sanctification  ? 

This  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  alone,  applying  the 
virtue  of  the  atonement  in  the  removal  of  the  last  trace  of  the 
indwelling  or  pollution  of  sin  and  consecrating  the  entire 
nature  of  the  believer  to  God  in  perfected  love. 

9.  Where  is  this  promised? 

Generally  by  all  the  assurances  of  salvation  or  redemption 
from  sin  ; but,  in  reference  to  sanctification  itself,  especially  by 
1 Thess.  V.  the  Apostle’s  prayer,  The  God  of  peace  Himself 
23,  24-  sanctify  you  wholly  : with  its  pledge  of  Divine 
fidelity  for  full  assurance. 

10.  What  is  the  force  of  this  passage? 

Two  words  are  used  in  it  that  express  completeness: 
oXoTcXets,  meaning  that  the  subjects  of  this  sanctification  are 
perfectly  sanctified  ; and  another  oXoKXrjpov^  which  shows  that 
1 Thess.  V.  l^he  former  referred  to  the  individual  as  composed  of 
23*  body  and  soul  and  spirit,  preserved  entire.^  without 

blame. 

11.  What  preeminence  is  here  observable  in  sanctification? 
It  is  a hallowing  of  the  whole  nature  of  man.  Our  right- 

Rom.viii.  10.  eousness  before  God  is  in  the  spirit : the  spirit  is  life 


Personal  Salvation, 


257 


because  of  righteousness.  Our  sonship  leaves  the  body  dead 
because  of  sin ; but  our  sanctification  views  even  the 
perishing  physical  frame  as  entirely  the  Lord^s  : 10.* 

Know  ye  not  that  your  body  is  a temple  of  the  Holy  ^ 

Ghost  which  is  in  you  ? 

12.  Do  not  some  other  passages  teach  the  entirenoss  of 
sanctification  ? 

(1)  There  are  some  which  refer  to  the  crucifixion  of  the 
flesh  and  the  destruction  of  the  body  of  sin  ; these  really  belong 
not  to  sanctification  but  to  the  growth  of  the  regenerate  life. 

(2)  Others  that  allude  to  the  law  as  fulfilled  in  us  be- 
long to  the  life  of  righteousness. 

(3)  We  have  to  do  now  with  sanctification  proper,  which 
is  simply  and  solely  the  removal  of  the  spot  or  defilement  that 
is  contrary  to  the  holiness  of  the  Divine  nature. 


13.  But  to  return  : What  is  meant  by  the  Spirit’s  applica- 
tion of  the  virtue  of  the  atonement  ? 

The  virtue  or  efficacy  of  the  atonement  is  direct  or  in- 
direct : direct  in  the  abolishing  of  the  alienation  or  wall  of 
partition  between  man  and  God,  which  is  its  virtue  proper; 
and  indirect,  in  obtaining  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
which  carries  its  virtue  into  the  inner  man. 


14.  Is  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  as  the  virtue  of  the  atonement, 
more  than  purification  from  inward  sin  ? 

Yes,  it  is  the  secret  of  communion  or  fellowship  with  God, 
of  which  purification  is  the  condition.  We  are  made,  through 
the  communio7t  of  the  Holy  Ghost^  gradually  to  be-  2 Cor.  xiii. 
come  partakers  of  the  Divine  nature^  and  partakers  ^ j ^ 
of  His  holiness.  Heb.  xii.  10. 


15.  What  means  or  instrumentalities  are  generally  con- 
nected with  internal  sanctification  ? 

(1)  The  word  of  truth  : Sanctify  them  in  the  truth  ; Thy 
word  is  triLth.  But  the  truth  is  the  instrument  of 
salvation  under  every  aspect  of  the  estate  of  grace.  Johnxvn.17. 

(2)  Sacramental  means  seal  the  covenant  of  sanctification: 
these  are  still  the  word  as  expressed  in  act,  and  as  such  convey 


258 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


the  grace  of  which  the}"  are  signs.  Here  also  we  must  re- 
member that  every  blessing  of  the  new  covenant  is  included. 

(3)  If  such  language  may  be  used,  the  sacred  presence  of 
the  Holy  Trinity  in  Christ  is  the  means  of  sanctification,  and 
necessarily  of  entire  sanctification.  The  prayer  for  the  in- 
dwelling of  Christ  has  this  object,  that  ye  may  be 

Eph.  111.  19.  ^ii  fulness  of  God, 

(4)  In  a very  important  sense,  the  might  of  Divine  love  is 

the  instrument  of  this  as  of  every  effect  of  Divine 
1 John  IV.  12.  perfected  in  us* 

16.  What  is  the  relation  of  repentance  and  faith  to  entire 

sanctification  ? 

Repentance  is  in  the  consecrated  soul  an  habitual  loathing 
of  sin  as  remaining  defilement  ; faith  is  the  conviction  that  it 
may  be  entirely  removed,  and  the  instrument  in  man  that 
obtains  its  removal  : actively  laying  hold  of  the  promise  and 
passively  receiving  its  fulfilment. 

17.  Does  any  promise  encourage  this  faith  ? 

(1)  When,  under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  faith  beholds 

Christ  as  having  in  Himself  no  sin^  and  as  manifested  to  take 
I John  iii  5 has  promise  enough  for  its  encourage- 

ment. 

(2)  By  grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith  : salvation  is 
E h ii  8 redemption  from  all  sin  in  this  world,  since  there 

^ ’ is  no  purgatorial  purification  after  death. 

(3)  Faith  therefore,  working  through  love  as  a condition, 

Gal  V 6 instrument  in  man  for  the  attain- 

* ment  of  the  Spirit’s  grace  in  the  utter  destruction  of 
evil  as  defilement  and  all  that  is  called  sin. 


§ 4.  5^{»ton'cal. 

1.  How  has  the  doctrine  of  sanctification  been  held  in  the 
Christian  Church? 

It  is  found  in  every  system  of  teaching  ; but  its  develop- 
ment has  been  clouded  by  many  misconceptions,  and  as  a 
doctrine  it  has  not  had  a sufficiently  distinct  place. 


Personal  Salvation. 


259 


2.  What  was  the  first  error  observable  P 

(i)  In  early  times  it  was  not  distinguished  from  Christian 
perfection  generally,  of  which  however  it  is  only  one  aspect. 

(2)  Internal  righteousness  and  internal  sanctification  were 
regarded  as  one  and  the  same  thing.  (3)  Both  these  errors 
are  found  in  various  forms  down  to  the  Reformation,  and  have 
not  been  wanting  since. 

3.  What  effect  has  the  former  had  ? 

Besides  throwing  the  terminology  of  the  New  Testament 
into  confusion,  it  tended  in  earlier  times  to  abolish  the  Spirit^s 
sanctifying  office,  by  making  sanctification  only  the  progress 
of  the  soul  towards  ethical  perfection : of  which  more  here- 
after. 

4.  What  have  been  the  effects  of  the  latter  ? 

They  may  be  traced  in  three  lines  : 

(1)  In  mediaeval  and  tridentine  theology,  sanctification  is 
no  other  than  progressive  justification.  The  inherent  grace 
infused,  or  the  indwelling  of  Christ  by  His  Spirit,  is  the 
common  source  of  both  ; but  without  remembering  that  the 
common  fountain  sends  forth  separate  streams. 

(2)  In  Lutheran  theology,  justification  is  mainly  limited 
to  the  imputation  of  Christ’s  righteousness,  and  sanctification 
is  actually  or  virtually  limited  to  the  good  works  which  are 
the  fruits  of  justification.  Hence  in  its  dogmatics  and  ex- 
pository books  sanctification,  as  such,  occupies  a small  place. 

(3)  In  the  Reformed  or  Calvinistic  theology,  sanctification 
is  either  the  gradual  development  of  the  holy  dispositions  im- 
planted in  the  new  birth,  and  therefore  progressive  regene- 
ration ; or  it  is  the  imputation  of  Christ’s  holiness  as  His 
perfect  obedience  to  the  law.  In  both  cases  sanctification  loses 
its  specific  character  as  the  removal  of  unholiness. 

6.  How  are  we  protected  from  these  several  errors? 

From  all  alike  by  remembering  that  the  Three  Estates  of 
covenanted  salvation  are  mutually  complementary,  each  being 
perfect  and  complete  in  itself.  But,  particularly  : 

(i)  Righteousness  is  our  conformity  to  the  justice  of  God 
12 


26o 


T he  Spirits  Administration. 


guarding  His  righteous  law ; sanctification  is  our  conformity 
to  His  holiness  which  guards  His  holy  nature, 

(2)  The  new  life  is  not  developed  in  sanctification.  It 
simply  grows  up  into  Christ  : sanctification  is  not  the  deepen- 
ing of  life  but  the  hallowing  that  life  to  God. 

(3)  Good  works,  which  all  these  systems  place  under  the 
head  of  sanctification,  have  no  more  to  do  with  it  than  with 
righteousness  or  the  new  life.  They  belong  to  ethics,  being 
the  common  condition  and  result  of  all. 

6.  But  does  not  the  New  Testament  invariably  go  on  from 

justification  through  the  new  life  to  the  good  works 

of  holiness  ? 

Much  theology  travels  in  that  course  ; but  the  New  Testa 
ment  never  does.  The  idea  of  law  is  predominant  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  ; that  of  holiness  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  ; but  good  works  in  the  newness  of  life  belong  to 
both.  Good  works  are  the  fruits  of  righteousness ; 
Phil.  i.  II.  we  are  created  in  Christ  Jesus  for  good  works  ; and 
iSm.  vL^2L  these  righteous  evidences  of  the  Spirit  of  life  are 
Eph.  iv.  24.  fruit  U7ito  sanctification  : not  so  much  fruits  of  sancti- 
fication as  themselves  to  be  sanctified,  ct?  dy6ao-/Aoi/. 
Mark  how  the  three  estates  are  united  : We  are  enjoined  to 
put  on  the  new  man^  which  after  God  hath  been  created  in 
righteousness  and  holiness  of  truth, 

7.  What  was  the  early  doctrine  of  the  Arminians  on  this 

subject? 

Arminius  was  among  the  first  to  distinguish  clearly  be 
tween  sanctification  and  justification  : teaching  that  the  former 
is  a gradual  purification  from  sin.  But  he  also  confounded  it 
with  the  gradual  death  of  the  old  man  ; and  left  it  uncertain 
whether  or  not  the  death  of  the  body  is  the  final  end  of  sin  in 
the  nature.  Nor  was  this  point  decided  by  his  followers. 

8.  Where  else  is  the  same  confusion  to  be  seen  ? 

In  both  Lutheran  and  Reformed  theology,  which  regard 
death  as  the  sanctifier,  and  hold  that  the  flesh  lusteth 
Gal.  V.  17.  against  the  Spirit  to  the  end  : a subtile  relic  of 
Gnosticism, 


Personal  Salvation. 


261 


9.  But  is  not  St.  Paul’s  teaching  in  the  same  strain  ? 

He  introduces  the  conflict  only  to  show  its  effect  in  this, 
that  ye  ?nay  not  do  the  things  that  ye  would.  Mean- 
while, they  that  are  of  Christ  Jesus  have  crucified  24* 

the  flesh ; and  crucifixion  is  unto  death.  But  this  has  to  do 
directly  with  regeneration,  and  with  sanctification  indirectly  : 
so  far  that  is  as  the  flesh  cannot  as  tainted  with  sin  enter  into 
heaven,  any  more  than  flesh  and  blood. 

10.  Has  the  present  privilege  of  deliverance  from  the  last 

taint  or  spot  of  sin  been  ever  taught  in  the  Christian 
Church  ? 

Not  explicitly  by  any  branch  of  it  until  the  Methodist 
theology  made  this  entire  sanctification  prominent. 

11.  Was  it  then  implicitly  taught  by  any? 

Yes,  by  all  ; but  not  as  a privilege  attainable  during  the 
probation  of  life.  The  highest  teaching  from  Augustine 
downwards  made  the  reservation  that  the  conflict  with  the 
remainder,  however  slight,  of  sin,  is  a necessary  part  of  the 
probation  of  the  believer^s  humility. 

12.  How  does  Methodist  theology  deal  with  this  ? 

(i)  By  insisting  that  the  perfect  love  of  God  is  shed 
abroad  in  the  heart,  and  that  this  must  needs  extinguish  the 
very  principle  of  self  which  is  the  true  defilement  of  original 
sin  ; (2)  by  its  doctrine  of  Christian  Perfection  generally. 

13.  What  is  this  doctrine? 

That  the  Christian  covenant  makes  provision  for  the 
completeness  of  the  estate  of  believers  in  every  relation,  entire 
sanctification  being  only  one  of  these.  This  will  be  our  next 
subject : for  this  completeness  is  Christian  perfection. 

14.  Meanwhile,  what  tendencies  to  error  are  still  to  be 

guarded  against  in  the  doctrine  of  entire  sanctifica- 
tion? 

(i)  Entire  consecration  to  God  is  sometimes  held  to  be 
the  whole  of  sanctification,  whereas  it  is  the  external  act  of  the 


262 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


Spirit,  which,  however  blessed  in  itself,  is  to  be  followed  by  an 
internal  purification  from  the  last  remains  of  the  carnal  mind. 

(2)  This  internal  purification,  though  in  its  completeness 
an  instant  and  decisive  act  of  the  same  Spirit,  is  the  crown  of 
penitent  faith.  The  believer’s  repentance  must  bring  forth  its 

own  fruits  in  the  mortification  of  indwelling  fruit 
Rom.  VI.  22.  sanctification.  There  is  danger  of  neglecting 

this  condition  of  the  supreme  gift, 

(3)  It  may  be  added  that  there  is  danger  also  of  forgetting 
the  distinction  between  sanctification  and  entire  sanctification  : 
as  if  holiness  or  consecration  to  God  were  a second  blessing 
bestowed  at  some  interval  after  believing.  Its  entireness  may 
be  called  a second  blessing,  but  holiness  itself  begins  the  life 
of  acceptance.  The  Holy  Spirit  as  a sanctifier  is  given,  not 

after  an  interval,  but  when  we  believe.  In  Whom^ 
p -1.13.14-  also  believed.,  ye  were  sealed  with  the  Holy 

Spirit  of  promise^  which  is  an  earnest  of  our  inheritance.,  as  wCj 
are  children,  and,  as  we  are  sanctified,  unto  the  redemption  of 
God^s  own  possession. 

(4)  A distinct  assurance,  connected  with  the  moment  of 
final  deliverance  from  sin,  and  as  it  were  apart  from  the  silent 
seal  of  the  indwelling  Spirit,  is  sometimes  looked  for  without 
any  express  warrant  of  Scripture. 

(5)  Other  safeguards  lead  us  to  our  next  subject,  the 
doctrine  of  Christian  Perfection. 


IV, 

©l^trisfian  ^erfccfion. 

§ 1.  IBbangelical  ^perfettion  m t!)e  Keto  ^Tfatament 

1,  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  Perfection  ? 

(i)  Positively,  that  is  perfect  which  has  reached  a designed 
end  (reXog).  (2)  Negatively,  that  which  lacks  nothing  included 
in  that  end. 

2.  How  is  it  applied  to  the  Supreme  Being  ? 

To  God  this  definition  cannot  apply.  He  absolutely  is 


Personal  Salvation. 


263 


perfect,  without  end  or  attainment.  But  perfection  is  attributed 
to  Him  in  relation  to  the  creature,  as  the  final  moral  standard. 
Ye  therefore  shall  be  perfect^  as  your  heavenly  Father 
is  perfect. 


Matt.  V.  48. 


3.  How  is  it  applicable  to  creatures  ? 

They  may  be  relatively  perfect : either  as  answering  to 
the  Divine  purpose  in  their  creation,  or  as  having  after 
failure  reached  it  again. 


4.  How  is  it  applied  to  men  in  particular? 

(i)  Man^s  perfection  is  to  him  only  restoration  ; and  that 

(2)  only  as  under  the  economy  of  grace. 

5.  What  was  the  original  perfection  of  man,  and  in  what 

sense  did  he  lose  it  ? 

He  was  created  in  union  with  God,  with  all  in  his 
nature  that  was  necessary  for  the  beginning  of  a perfect 
course  of  development.  As  separated  from  God  by  sin,  his 
natural  course  of  perfection  was  suspended  and  must  be 
begun  again  after  a supernatural  order. 

6.  What  is  the  relation  of  grace  to  man’s  perfection  ? 

Through  the  mediation  of  a perfect  Saviour  man  recovers 
his  original  perfection  and  more  than  that. 


7.  How  may  the  perfection  of  the  Mediator  be  viewed  ? 
Under  several  most  important  aspects  : 

(1)  He  was  in  the  incarnation  perfect  man  : perfect,  that 
is,  in  spiritual  union  or  rather  unity  with  God,  but  for  the  sake 
of  redemption  sharing  the  infirmities  of  fallen  man. 

(2)  He  was  as  the  Author  of  their  salvation  made  perfect 
through  sufferings  : that  is,  perfected  in  all  that  was 
required  to  fill  up  the  idea  of  an  atoning  Saviour. 

(3)  His  atonement  introduced  a perfect  method  of 
recovery  in  relation  to  the  legal  economy  which 

made  nothing  perfect. 

(4)  Being  Himself  perfected,  By  one  offering  He  hath 
perfected  for  ever  them  that  are  sanctified : that 

is,  He  has  made  eternal  provision  for  their  complete 
restoration. 


264 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


• (5)  He  Himself  is  the  model  to  which  their  perfection  is 
to  be  conformed. 


8.  Under  what  aspects  is  the  perfection  of  His  people  viewed  ? 

These  again  are  various  and  should  be  studied  in  order : 

(1)  There  is  a relative  perfection  in  conversion  or  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  discipleship  : If  thou  wouldest  be 

Matt  Mix  21  ' referred  to  a preparatory  and  perfect  readi- 

att.xax.2i.  discipline  of  a further  perfection. 

(2)  The  believer  receives  a perfect  salvation  as  it  is  the 
enjoyment  of  outward  privilege.  In  all  respects  he  is  placed 
in  a perfect  relation  to  God  through  grace. 

(3)  It  is  perfect  maturity  in  the  Faith  as  opposed  to  the 

childhood  of  the  Law.  We  speak  wisdom  amone  the 

^Cor.ii.6. 

(4)  There  is  presented  to  faith  an  internal  perfection  of 
salvation  from  sin  and  conformity  with  the  righteousness  and 
holiness  of  God : of  which  more  hereafter. 

(5)  There  is  a standard  of  ethical  perfection  which  runs 
parallel  with  this  at  all  points. 

(6)  Then  comes  the  perfect  consummation  in  another  state, 

both  of  body  and  soul : meanwhile,  the  spirits  of  just 
e .X11.23.  made  perfect  in  death. 

(7)  Final  perfection  is  the  progressive  realisation  by  man 
throughout  eternity  of  the  original  purpose  of  the  Creator. 

9.  What  do  we  mean  by  the  second  of  these  ? 

That  the  Holy  Spirit  so  applies  the  atoning  work  to 
believers  united  to  Christ  that  they  may  be  and  are  made 
perfect  in  the  restoration  of  their  forfeited  relation  to  God. 


10.  What  is  the  relation  of  this  to  union  with  Christ? 

In  Him  alone,  through  union  with  Him  by  faith,  we  have 
in  time  and  eternity  our  acceptance : perfect  in  Christy  and  in 
Col  i 28  cornplete  or  made  full ; Who  was  made  unto  us 

Coiiii.  io.  wisdom  from  God^  and  righteousness^  and  sanctu 

1 Cor.  1. 30.  fication^  and  redemption. 

(i)  Hence  believers  have  become  the  righteousness  of  God 
in  Him  ; (2)  in  Him  they  are  sons  of  God  : ye  are  all  sons  of 

2 Cor.  V.  21.  Godin  Christ  Jesus.,  through  faith  ; and  (3)  they  are 
?cor“i.2^‘  once  sanctified  in  Jesus  Christ : sanctified  once 

Hea  X.  10.  for  all. 


Personal  Salvation. 


265 


11.  What  is  the  testimony  of  Scripture  as  to  internal  per- 

fection ? 

In  all  descriptions  of  the  estate  of  grace  we  are  taught  to 
expect  a finished  work  in  this  world  : in  other  words  Christian 
moral  perfection  : that  is,  a state  in  which  nothing  is  wanting. 

(1)  As  to  our  righteousness  : the  grace  of  the  Spirit  is 

given  for  our  moral  conformity  to  the  will  and  nature  of  God  : 
that  the  ordinance  or  requirement  of  the  law  might  he  Rom.  viii.  4. 
fulfilled  in  us  ; He  that  doeth  righteous7iess  is  right-  ^ 7- 

eous^  even  as  He  is  righteous.  These  passages  must  not  be 
limited. 

(2)  As  to  our  sonship  : being  foreordained  to  he  conformed 

to  the  image  of  His  6*0;/,  our  old  man  was  crucified  Rom.  viu. 
with  Him^  that  the  body  of  sin  might  he  dojie  away^  ^ 

that  we  may  grow  up  in  all  things  into  Him  ; whence  Eph.’iy.‘i5. 
as  He  is^  even  so  are  we  in  this  world.  Nor  should 

these  be  limited. 

(3)  As  to  our  sanctification  : the  provision  of  grace  is 
sufficient  for  the  removal  of  all  unholiness  : Ye  shall  ^ 

he  holy  for  I am  holy^  and  preserved  entire.^  without  i Thess.‘  v! 
blame, 

12.  How  is  the  love  of  God  connected  with  this  ? 

(1)  That  love  in  Christ  is  pledged  to  our  salvation.  As  it 
is  the  source  so  it  is  the  agent  and  finisher  of  all : 

His  love  is  perfected  in  us,  ijohmv.12. 

(2)  It  is  the  might  that  vanquishes  and  expels  sin,  as  the 

instrument  of  the  Spirit  of  life.  Rom.  vm.  2. 

(3)  In  its  return  to  God  is  the  bond  of  perfectness  ^ ^ ... 

13.  Then  love  is  the  bond  that  unites  the  Spirit’s  work  and 

our  own? 

Yes  ; the  perfecting  of  the  love  of  God  in  us  is  the  Spirirs 
operation,  and  our  love  perfected  in  return  is  the  whole  of  our 
perfection.  Love  is  the  supreme  word  in  heaven  and  on  earth. 

14.  What  is  the  relation  between  the  perfection  given  and 

the  perfection  wrought  in  us? 

We  must  regard  the  ethical  perfection  of  character  as 
(i)  the  condition  on  which  the  effectual  operation  of  grace 
depends,  and  (2)  the  necessary  effect  and  exhibition  of  that 


266 


The  Spirit's  Administration, 


grace.  In  either  case,  the  perfect  work  of  grace  must  have 
the  preeminence. 

15.  How  is  ethical  perfection  generally  described  ? 

(i)  As  the  completeness  of  a moral  character,  formed 
under  the  influence  of  Divine  grace.  The  God  of  peace  . . . 

make  you  perfect  in  every  good  thing  to  do  His  will, 
Heb.xm.2o,  growth  to  perfection  of  individual  grace  : 

1 John IV  15  instance,  And  let  patience  have  its  perfect  work^ 
that  ye  may  he  perfect  and  entire^  lacking  in  nothing. 
Perfect  love  casteth  out  fear, 

16.  Still,  perfection  is  the  administration  of  the  Spirit? 

Yes  ; for  every  good  giving  a7id  every  perfect  gift  is  from 

above.  The  discipline  of  a holy  life  belongs  to 
jas.1.17.  Christian  ethics,  but  its  perfection  belongs  to  our 
present  section. 

17.  How  may  we  reconcile  it  with  human  imperfection  ? 

By  remembering  that  (i)  it  is  the  perfection  of  the  re- 
deemed amidst  all  the  limitations  of  sense  and  infirmity  ; and 
(2)  that  it  is  Christian  or  Evangelical  perfection,  that  is, 
perfection  as  so  reckoned  in  the  economy  of  grace,  preserved 
in  us,  as  it  is  imparted,  only  through  our  faith  in  the  atone- 
I Cor.  xiii.  Hient  ; and  (3)  that  there  is  a future  of  unlimited 
*0*  progress,  when  that  which  is  perfect  is  come. 


§ 2. 

1.  What  has  been  the  place  of  Christian  perfection  in  Chris- 

tian theology  ? 

All  systems  of  doctrine  have  included  it,  though  mostly 
without  giving  it  a formal  and  distinct  place.  No  theological 
question  has  been  more  variously  handled  and  more  persis- 
tently obscured. 

2.  How  may  we  classify  errors  on  this  subject? 

Under  two  heads  : (i)  theories  of  perfection  which  have 
severed  it  from  the  fundamentals  of  Christianity  ; (2)  those 
which  have  erred  as  to  the  relation  between  perfection  as  a 
gift  of  grace  and  perfection  as  wrought  in  the  believer. 


Personal  Salvation. 


267 


3.  Where  do  we  find  the  fbrmer? 

In  all  Pelagian  teaching,  which  denies  original  sin  in  man 
and  redemption  from  sin  in  Christ. 

4.  What  forms  has  this  error  assumed? 

(1)  Pelagius  himself  held  a very  consistent  doctrine  : in 
his  system  the  will  of  every  man  is  what  it  was  in  Adam,  and 
may  reach  perfection  as  his  might  have  reached  it : the 
teaching  of  law  and  the  example  of  Christ  are  enough. 

(2)  There  is  a Pelagian  philosophy  of  human  progress 
which  makes  its  watchword  the  perfectibility  of  humanity  as 
a whole : this,  however,  has  not  the  relation  with  Christianity 
that  even  Pelagius  had. 

(3)  And  in  Unitarian  systems,  holding  the  Gospel  to  be 
the  highest  instrument  of  human  discipline,  by  which  man 
may  reach  the  only  perfection  that  an  infirm  creature,  in  the 
midst  of  temptation,  may  attain. 

5.  What  errors  are  observable  in  more  Christian  teaching 

as  to  the  relation  between  perfection  as  a gift  of  grace 
and  as  a work  in  the  believer? 

These  may  be  again  classed  under  two  heads  : first,  that 
which,  making  redemption  mainly  a provision  to  release  man 
from  inability,  regards  perfection  rather  as  his  own  attainment ; 
and,  secondly,  that  of  those  who  make  it  simply  and  solely  a 
gift  in  union  with  Christ. 

6.  What  ground  is  common  to  these  ? 

They  agree  in  regarding  Christ’s  work  as  the  ultimate 
ground  of  man’s  perfection  ; and  again  they  agree  in  making 
perfection  in  man  himself  unattainable  in  this  life. 

7.  Where  lies  the  truth  of  Scripture  as  between  these  ? 

In  holding  that  the  perfect  work  of  Christ  for  us  is  to  be 
perfectly  wrought  out  in  us. 

8.  What  has  been  the  general  character  of  the  former  error  ? 

It  has  made  Christian  perfection  a discipline  of  asceticism 
with  the  grace  of  the  Gospel  behind  it. 

12* 


268 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


9.  What  is  asceticism? 

Its  Scriptural  expression  is  Exercise  thyself  unto  godliness, 
St.  Paul  gave  the  word,  and  illustrated  it  by  his  example  : 
1 Tim  iv  ^ under  my  body  and  bring  it  into  bondage^ 

I Con  i^‘27.  and  Herein  do  I also  exercise  (da-Kcj)  myself  to  have  a 
Acts  XXIV.  16.  conscience  void  of  offence  toward  God  and  toward  men 
alway.  Thus  the  Apostle  recommends  asceticism,  but  guards 
it  : in  his  teaching  it  is  the  constant  care  of  self,  in  order  to 
godliness  and  the  discharge  of  every  duty  to  man. 

10.  Into  what  error  has  asceticism  fallen  in  the  pursuit  of 

Christian  perfection  ? 

(1)  Its  aim  has  been  right : the  entire  victory  of  the 

spirit  over  the  flesh,  to  be  attained  by  fasting,  mortification 
of  the  appetites  ; total  abstraction  from  the  world  ; the 
iCorix26  suppression  of  the  will,  or  its  annihilation 

1 or. IX.  2 . the  will  of  God  ; and  in  all  things  the  walking  not 
uncertainly, 

(2)  But  its  means  have  been  often  devices  of  undue 
severity,  weakening  and  dishonouring  the  body  as  the  instru- 
ment of  God^s  service. 

(3)  And,  chiefly,  it  has  not  sufficiently  acknowledged  the 
Spirit  of  holiness  as  the  supreme  and  indeed  the  sole  admini- 
strator of  Christian  perfection. 

11.  Wherein  has  the  mystical  theory  of  perfection  differed 

from  this? 

There  have  been  two  kinds  of  mysticism  ; a false  one  tend- 
ing to  Pantheism,  and  a true  one  filled  with  the  Spirit  of  love. 

(1)  False  mysticism  has  thrown  aside  all  means,  and 
sought  to  be  independent  both  of  ascetic  discipline  and  the 
virtue  of  the  atonement  ; aiming  at  a quietistic  and  direct 
absorption  of  the  soul  in  the  contemplation  of  God. 

(2)  True  mysticism,  in  every  communion,  has  sought  to 
unite  asceticism  and  dependence  on  the  Spirit,  by  the  three 
principles  of  purification,  illumination,  and  union  with  God. 

12.  What  error  may  be  discovered  here  ? 

Simply  that  the  three  stages  have  been  too  clearly  marked 


Personal  Salvation, 


i6g 


and  made  too  distinct.  The  suppression  of  evil  does  not  lead 
to  the  enlightenment  of  the  Spirit  and  union  with  God : they 
all  go  together  in  an  undistinguishable  progress  to  perfection. 
Moreover,  mysticism,  like  asceticism,  never  included  in  its 
doctrine  the  Spirit^s  power  in  the  removal  of  all  sin. 

13.  These  theories  of  Christian  perfection  tended  to  lower 

the  direct  administration  of  the  Spirit : were  there  any 
that  exaggerated  it? 

Almost  from  the  Apostles^  days  there  has  been  a stream  of 
tendency  to  regard  the  Holy  Spirit  as  promised  and  given 
in  a dispensation  distinct  from  the  ordinary  dispensation  of 
Christian  privilege. 

(1)  This  was  seen  in  the  Gnostics  of  the  second  century, 
who  called  themselves  “the  perfect’^  as  being  delivered  from 
matter  and  the  flesh. 

(2)  Also  in  the  Montanists,  who  distinguished  themselves 

as  “ the  Spiritual  from  “ the  Carnal  : as  under  the  last  and 

best  dispensation  of  the  Spirit. 

(3)  In  the  middle  ages  “ the  Perfect  Ones  or  “ Catharists 
made  the  same  claim  under  many  denominations. 

(4)  Some  remainder  of  this  ancient  error  may  be  found  in 
those  who  regard  the  Spirit  of  power  from  on  high  as  a gift 
supplementary  to  the  first  faith  in  Christ  that  brings  accept- 
ance, and  necessary  to  its  completion. 

14.  What  is  the  common  refutation  of  all  these  errors? 

The  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  Church  and  every 
individual  of  it  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  In  Whom^ 
having  also  believed^  ye  were  sealed  with  the  Holy 
Spirit  of  promise.  Having  begun  in  the  Spirit.^  are 
ye  now  perfected  in  the  flesh  ? 

15.  How  does  this  last  passage  bear  on  our  present  review  ? 

It  shows  that  the  Spirit,  the  bestowment  of  Whom  begins 
the  reign  of  grace  in  us,  is  the  same  who  perfects  it ; it  is  His 
administration  from  first  to  last.  He  is  the  earliest  seal  of 
every  privilege,  and,  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  the  finisher  of  our 
salvation : we  may  be  perfected  in  the  Spirit. 


270 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


16.  What  are  the  peculiarities  of  Romanist  teaching  ? 

It  has  many  varieties  ; but,  as  authoritatively  laid  down, 
its  principles  are  these  : 

(1)  As  to  the  law  : it  is  possible  for  man  to  render  a 
perfect  obedience  to  the  spirit  and  essence  of  the  moral  law,  as 
that  law  applies  to  man  “ in  this  state  of  life.^^ 

(2)  As  to  deliverance  from  evil  : concupiscence  as  sin  is 
removed  ; but  as  the  possible  fuel  of  sin  it  is  never  taken 
away.  The  venial  sins,  or  sins  of  defect,  which  may  spring 
from  it,  do  not  affect  the  state  of  grace  or  righteousness.  More- 
over, these  venial  sins  may  utterly  cease,  and  then  the  concupi- 
scence itself  is  no  more  sin  than  it  was  in  Adam. 

(3)  Love,  being  sundered  from  law,  may  rise  above  mere 
obedience,  and  perform  works  of  supererogation  : following  the 
counsels  of  a special  perfection. 

17.  What  is  meant  by  the  counsels  of  perfection  ? 

Certain  commandments  of  our  Lord  which  were  given  on 
special  occasions  have  been  taken  as  pointing  out  the  way  ol 
a peculiar  and  higher  perfection,  counselled  and  recommended 
but  not  made  imperative.  Thus  absolute  poverty,  chastity,  and 
obedience  or  renunciation  of  the  will,  have  been  established  as 
the  three  watchwords  of  a higher  level  of  the  religious  life. 

18.  Where  lies  the  error  in  this? 

It  sets  up  two  standards  of  perfect  devotion  where  there 
can  be  but  one  ; it  forgets  that  the  spirit  of  poverty,  chastity 
and  obedience  is  the  mark  of  every  Christian,  to  be  exemplified 
in  every  kind  of  life ; and,  as  bound  up  with  the  idea  of  merit 
achieved  beyond  the  ordinary  range  of  obedience,  with  the 
system  of  indulgences  based  upon  it,  the  theory  contradicts 
the  doctrines  of  grace  and  has  introduced  great  evils  into 
the  church. 

19.  What  elements  of  good  remain  in  the  mediaeval  and 

tridentine  teaching  ? 

It  strongly  asserted  the  possibility  of  presenting  to  God  an 
obedience  which  He  counts  perfect  ; it  exhibited  the  germ  of  a 


Personal  Salvation. 


271 


sound  distinction  between  the  sin  to  which  the  will  consents 
and  the  remainder  of  sin  which  is  not  imputed  as  such  ; it  kept 
alive  the  salutary  thought  of  a perpetual  self-discipline  co- 
operating with  Divine  grace. 

20.  How  was  this  good  neutralised  ? 

The  first  by  the  perfect  obedience  being  regarded  as  the 
special  gift  of  God  on  certain  evangelical  conditions  ; the 
second  by  reckoning  concupiscence  to  be  in  no  sense  sin  ; and 
the  third  by  building  on  it  a superstructure  of  meritorious 
works.  Generally,  the  whole  doctrine  of  Christian  perfection 
in  this  system  does  not  give  the  Holy  Spirit  His  preeminence 
as  the  sole  administrator  to  all  who  believe  of  an  objective  and 
subjective  completeness  in  Christ. 

21.  How  may  we  define  the  second  class  of  errors  on  this 

subject  ? 

Its  root  is  the  assumption  that  the  only  Christian  per- 
fection is  the  Spirits  application  to  the  soul  of  Christ’s  finished 
work  : His  passive  righteousness  for  its  deliverance  from  con- 
demnation in  time  and  in  eternity  ; His  active  righteousness 
for  its  presentation  before  God,  perfect  and  complete,  as  having 
in  Him  perfectly  kept  the  law. 

22.  What  is,  generally,  the  cardinal  error  here  ? 

The  exaggeration  of  our  Lord’s  vicarious  relation  in  the 
atonement. 

23.  How  may  we  trace  its  operation  ? 

( I ) It  leaves  out  one  branch  of  the  Scripkiral  teaching  as 
to  union  with  Christ,  that  he  that  is  joined  to  the 
Lord  is  one  spirit  : the  Spirit  of  union  produces  a ^ °r.vi.  17. 
spirit  entirely  one  with  the  Lord’s.  (2)  While  professing  to 
magnify  the  law  as  perfectly  kept  only  by  Christ,  and  never  to 
be  kept  by  fallen  man,  it  forgets  that  our  Lord’s  own  obedience 
was  that  of  perfect  love,  and  that  perfect  love  is  reckoned  for 
our  obedience;  (3)  it  steadfastly  undervalues  and  misinter- 
prets the  many  passages  which  enjoin  and  pray  for  a state  of 
Christian  perfection  in  the  believer  himself. 


272 


The  Spirifs  Administration. 


24.  What  is  the  obvious  peril  of  this  ? 

Antinomianism,  as  a theoretical  and  practical  exaggeration 
of  evangelical  freedom  from  law. 

25.  Is  this  danger  essentially  inherent  in  the  Calvinistic 

system  ? 

By  no  means  : in  the  best  of  their  writers  and  saints  their 
doctrine  is  an  intense  incitement  to  personal  holiness.  For, 
(i)  they  make  interior  conformity  with  Christ  the  object  of  a 
ceaseless  pursuit,  the  attainment  however  being  a gift  sealed 
only  in  death  ; and  (2)  they  regard  the  gift  of  an  eternal 
sanctification  in  Christ  as  a motive  to  infinite  gratitude,  and 
the  most  absolute  selfabasement,  in  the  present  life. 

26.  What  were  the  views  of  the  Arminians  or  Remonstrants  ? 

(i)  They  taught  that  the  law  may  be  kept  through  love 
in  what  God  reckons  a perfect  fulfilment : the  strictest  rigour 
of  law  being  abated  in  the  covenant  of  grace.  (2)  That  sancti- 
fication is  a daily  process  in  which  sin  becomes  weaker  and 
the  new  nature  stronger.  (3)  The  final  deliverance  from  in- 
bred  sin — whether  to  be  expected  before  death  or  only  in 
death — they  left  undetermined. 

27.  How  did  they  turn  their  doctrine  against  the  Romanist  ? 

Agreeing  with  Rome  that  the  new  covenant  has  delivered 
men  from  the  rigour  of  the  perfect  law — whether  as  a con- 
dition of  salvation  or  as  a standard  of  possible  attainment — 
they  opposed  Rome  by  maintaining  that  Christian  perfection 
must  at  best  be  a merciful  imputation,  and  that  therefore  any 
merit  beyond  commanded  duty  is  impossible. 

28.  How  did  they  use  it  as  against  the  Calvinists,  their 
nearer  opponents  ? 

Agreeing  with  them  that  Christ  is  the  one  and  only 
ground  of  our  acceptance  and  sanctification,  they  insisted 
against  them  that  the  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  to  impress 
upon  the  soul  the  Lord^s  image  and  to  work  in  it  a righteous- 
ness conformed  to  His  and  accepted  as  such. 


Personal  Salvation. 


273 


29.  What  modifications  of  Arminian  doctrine  on  this  par- 
ticular subject  have  appeared  in  later  times  ? 

These  have  had  reference  mainly  to  the  sense  in  which  the 
law,  as  the  standard  of  perfection,  is  supposed  to  be  graciously 
modified,  (i)  The  Arminians  held  that  the  original  moral 
law  is  displaced  by  the  law  of  Christ  or  the  law  of  oai.  vi  2. 
faith  : being  no  longer  the  condition  of  either  present  ^7- 

or  future  acceptance  ; though,  as  summed  up  in  love,  it  is  still 
the  rule  of  duty.  (2)  But  it  has  been  laid  down  by  many, 
especially  the  theologians  of  the  Oberlin  school  in  America, 
that  there  is  no  moral  law  incumbent  on  man  but  that  which 
is  within  the  power  of  the  fallen  subject  of  it : the  law  is 
not  mercifully  transfigured  in  Christ,  but  in  sheer  justice 
accommodated  to  human  weakness.  (3)  The  Methodist 
doctrine  has  avoided  this  latter  error  by  teaching,  not  the 
lowering  of  the  law,  but  a special  kind  of  obedience  which 
is  counted  perfection  : Christian  perfection  is  the  perfect  per- 
formance of  the  conditions  of  the  Gospel. 

80.  In  what  relation  to  this  do  the  views  of  the  Friends  as 
to  the  perfection  of  the  work  of  grace  stand? 

Their  doctrine  is  a combination  of  Mysticism  and  Armi- 
nianism.  The  following  sentences  from  Barclay's  Apology 
shew  how  high  it  is  and  how  much  nearer  to  the  Methodist 
doctrine  than  any  other.  Though  we  judge  so  of  the  best 
works  performed  by  man,  endeavouring  a conformity  with  the 
outward  law  by  his  own  strength,  and  in  his  own  will,  yet  we 
believe  that  such  works  as  naturally  proceed  from  this  spiritual 
birth  and  formation  of  Christ  in  us  are  pure  and  holy,  even  as 
the  root  from  whence  they  come  ; therefore  God  accepts  them, 
justifies  us  in  them,  and  rewards  us  for  them  in  His  own  free 
grace.^’  The  redemption  wrought  for  us  and  in  us  is  as  the 
free  gift  of  God,  able  to  counterbalance,  overcome,  and  root 
out  the  evil  seed  wherewith  we  are  naturally,  as  in  the  Fall,  lea- 
vened.^^  This  firm  statement  is,  however,  sometimes  modified. 

31.  What,  more  particularly,  are  the  main  elements  of  the 
Methodist  teaching  on  Christian  perfection? 

They  may  be  best  stated  in  the  words  of  John  Wesley. 


274 


The  spirit's  Administration. 


which  must  be  quoted,  as  the  teaching  of  Christian  perfection 
is  generally  held  to  be  a peculiarity  of  Methodism. 

(1)  As  to  the  perfect  fulfilling  of  the  law  : “ Faith  working 
or  animated  by  love  is  all  that  God  requires  of  man.  He  has 
substituted  (not  sincerity,  but)  love  in  the  room  of  angelic 
perfection. The  perfect  love  of  God  and  man,  shed  abroad 
in  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  both  all  law  and  all  obedi- 
ence to  law  : this  as  to  Christian  righteousness. 

(2)  As  to  deliverance  from  sin  in  the  nature.  This  is 
regarded  as  the  perfect  life  of  regeneration  in  the  death  of  the 
old  man  or  inbred  sin.  “In  like  manner,  he  may  be  dying  to 
sin  for  some  time  ; yet  he  is  not  dead  to  sin,  till  sin  is  separated 
from  his  soul,  and  in  that  instant  he  lives  the  full  life  of 
love:^’  “the  moment  wherein  sin  ceases  to  be,’’ or  “when, 
after  having  been  fully  convinced  of  inbred  sin,  by  a far  deeper 
and  clearer  conviction  than  that  he  experienced  before  justifica- 
tion, and  after  having  experienced  a gradual  mortification  of 
it,  he  experiences  a total  death  to  sin,  and  an  entire  renewal 
in  the  love  and  image  of  God.”  This  as  to  Christian  sonship. 

(3)  As  to  the  relation  of  this  to  our  holiness  : “ The  term 
SANCTIFIED  is  Continually  applied  by  St.  Paul  to  all  who  are 
justified  ; by  this  term  alone  he  rarely  if  ever  means  ‘ saved 
from  all  sin  ’ ; consequently,  it  is  not  proper  to  use  it  in  that 
sense  without  adding  the  word  wholly,  entirely,  or  the 
like.”  This  as  to  Christian  sanctification. 

32.  What  is  the  cardinal  principle  in  the  teaching  as  a whole  ? 

(1)  “ Pure  love  reigning  alone  in  the  heart  and  life : this 
is  the  whole  of  Scriptural  perfection.”  But  love  is  invariably 
exhibited  as  the  unwearied  energy  of  all  good  works. 

(2)  That  perfection  is  solely  the  Spirit's  work  in  the 
believer  ; but  implies  his  most  strenuous  co-operation  : as  to 
the  former,  it  is  received  merely  by  faith,  and  hence  may 
be  given  instantaneously,  “ in  a moment  ” ; as  to  the  latter, 
“ there  is  a gradual  work,  both  preceding  and  following  that 
instant.” 

33.  On  a review  of  the  entire  subject,  what  do  we  learn  ? 

That  there  is  no  consistent  doctrine  of  Christian  perfection 


Personal  Salvation. 


275 


which  does  not  so  honour  the  virtue  of  the  atonement  and 
the  Spirit’s  application  of  it  as  to  teach  the  possibility  of  a full 
salvation  from  the  indwelling  of  sin  and  the  perfect  restoration 
of  the  image  of  God  : in  a word,  the  full  accomplishment  in 
human  life  in  the  flesh  of  all  those  designs  for  which  GaUi.  20. 
the  mystery  of  godliness  was  manifest  in  the  flesh.  ^ 

34.  From  such  a state  as  this  can  there  he  a fall? 

Yes  ; since  it  is  not  a deliverance  from  infirmity  and 
temptation  and  many  of  the  consequences  of  that  original  sin 
of  the  race  from  which  as  his  own  inbred  sin  the  believer  may 
be  saved.  But  this  leads  to  the  subject  of  the  next  chapter. 

35.  What  answer  may  he  given  to  every  argument  against 

this  doctrine  ? 

That  of  St.  Peter  : Sanctify  in  your  hearts  Christ  as 
Lord,  If  He  be  perfectly  hallowed  in  the  spirit  1 Peter  iiu 
within,  He  will  perfectly  hallow  our  good  manner  ^5. 16. 
of  life  in  Christ  in  the  world  without.  Those  who  oppose 
this  doctrine  as  perfectionism  dishonour  a word  that  pervades 
the  New  Testament. 

36.  But  is  there  no  caution  necessary  as  to  the  employment 

of  the  word  hy  those  who  hold  the  true  doctrine? 

(1)  It  cannot  be  too  carefully  remembered  that  the  word 
has  a large  variety  of  applications  in  the  New  Testament ; and 
that  therefore  it  ought  not  to  be  used  without  express  reference 
to  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used. 

(2)  As  employed  by  the  individual  Christian  concerning 
himself,  it  is  a term  more  appropriate  to  his  aspiration  than 
his  professed  attainment. 

(3)  But  this  by  no  means  throws  doubt  upon  the  possi- 
bility of  that  attainment 


276 


T he  Spirit's  A dministration. 


Chapter  V. 

'probation  of  gospel. 

1.  What  is  the  subject  suggested  by  this  superscription? 

The  question  as  to  the  tenure  on  which  the  blessings  of 
the  Christian  covenant  are  held. 

2.  On  what  leading  terms  does  the  subject  rest  ? 

On  Assurance,  Probation  and  Perseverance : as  separate 
and  in  combination. 

3.  State  the  doctrine  resulting  from  the  combination  of 

these  terms  ? 

That  the  blessings  of  the  Christian  covenant  are  con- 
veyed to  believers  as  in  a probationary  state  : with  full 
certitude  of  their  possession  while  and  as  long  as  they  are 
faithful  to  the  conditions  of  their  bestowment. 

4.  Does  not  the  full  meaning  borne  by  either  of  the  first 

two  exclude  that  of  the  other  ? 

Not  if  they  are  rightly  understood.  Assurance  may 
indeed  be  interpreted  in  such  a sense  that  the  idea  of  a 
test  in  this  life  followed  by  approval  in  the  judgment  shall 
be  shut  out.  And  probation  may  be  so  exaggerated  that  any 
assurance  this  side  of  the  judgment  shall  be  hardly  admitted. 
It  is  our  duty  to  make  each  supplement  and  qualify  and  guard 
the  other.  Thus  only  do  we  reach  the  complete  view  of  all. 

6.  May  not  the  doctrine  of  final  perseverance  reconcile 
them? 

Perseverance  is  a grace  that  belongs  to  probation ; and 
as  such  it  is  encouraged  by  assurance.  A gift  of  final  per- 
severance is  nowhere  included  in  the  covenant  of  grace. 


The  Prooahon  of  the  Gospel. 


277 


6.  Does  the  tenour  of  the  New  Testament  combine  assurance 

with  probation  in  such  a way  as  to  justify  this  state- 
ment? 

That  can  be  seen  only  by  examining  the  charter  itself 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  administers. 

7.  Does  not  the  Holy  Spirit  apply  rather  than  administer 

the  covenant  ? 

Nd  : the  term  apply  does  not  aptly  suit  the  way  in  which 
believers  are  made  partakers  of  its  provisions.  The  Spirit 
administers  a covenant  or  testament  which  has  been  ratified 
once  for  all  in  the  blood  of  Christ ; and  He  does  this  accord- 
ing to  terms,  or  on  conditions,  by  which  as  the  executant  of 
the  Lord’s  will  He  Himself  is  bound  in  the  counsel  John  xvi. 
of  redemption,  He  shall  not  speak  from  Himself  ^3- 

§ 1,  probation, 

1.  What  is  probation  generally? 

Moral  trial  issuing  in  a confirmed  and  fixed  estate,  either 
of  approval  or  reprobation. 

2.  To  what  extent  does  this  law  of  probationary  test 

govern  God’s  dealings  with  man? 

We  have  seen  that  it  lay  at  the  foundation  of  the  human 
history ; and  the  whole  of  Scripture  shows  that  it  still 
continues,  although  under  new  and  very  peculiar  conditions. 
In  Paradise  the  probation  was  the  trial  of  man’s  fidelity  to 
the  good  ; now  it  is  the  trial  of  his  fidelity  to  grace  working 
in  his  own  nature  to  turn  him  from  evil. 

3.  But  did  not  the  covenant  of  grace  abolish  probation? 

(1)  The  very  idea  of  covenant,  as  a method  of  Divine 
salvation,  implies  conditions  on  the  part  of  man  ; and  con- 
ditions imply  probation.  Though  the  conditions  can  be 
fulfilled  only  through  grace,  they  are  conditions  still. 

(2)  That  the  Redeemer  undertook  and  ensured  the  salva- 
tion of  a portion  of  the  race  is  not  the  doctrine  of  revelation, 
which  represents  mankind  as  having  a new  trial  outside  of 


278 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


the  garden.  The  Creator  made  of  one  every  nation  of  men 
Actsxvii.  . . . that  they  should  seek  God:  the  whole  of  what 
26-31.  follows  in  the  apostle^s  discourse  betokens  a vast 
and  universal  probation. 

4.  Is  the  word  probation  expressly  employed  in  Scripture  ? 

The  idea  underlies  the  term  trial  or  test  or  temptation 
with  all  that  belongs  to  it.  (i)  On  the  part  of  God  we  have 
such  words  as  try  or  tempt,  strive,  command,  forbear,  promise, 
threaten,  judge,  punish,  reward.  (2)  On  the  part  of  man, 
obedience,  rebellion,  choosing  good  or  evil,  tempting  God, 
yielding  to  or  vexing  His  Spirit,  conscience,  and  self- 
judgment. All  this  is  the  vocabulary  of  probation  : as 
appointed  of  God  and  as  sustained  by  man, 

6.  How  may  we  trace  the  lines  of  human  probation  ? 

(1)  In  the  first  appeals  of  mercy,  which  test  the  secret 
will  as  already  under  a preliminary  grace,  and  speak  to  man 
as  responsible  : here  is  the  profoundest  secret  of  probation. 

(2)  In  the  process  of  life  after  acceptance  or  refusal  of 
mercy  ; both  being  summed  up  in  one  sentence  : Try  your  own 
selves^  whether  ye  be  in  the  faith ; prove  your  own  selves, 
2 Cor.  xiii.  Or  know  ye  not  as  to  your  own  selves^  that  Jesus 

5*  Christ  is  in  you  ? unless  indeed  ye  be  reprobate. 

The  only  reprobation  is  the  being  tried  and  found  wanting. 

(3)  The  issues  of  the  final  judgment  will  be  a severance 
between  two  characters  formed  in  the  present  life. 

6.  What  effect  has  the  Gospel  covenant  on  probation  ? 

(1)  As  it  respects  the  whole  race  our  faith  trusts  in  the 

PHILANTHROPY  of  God,  His  love  toward  man  : grace  now  reigns 
Titus iii  world  and  will  judge  it  in  perfect  righteous- 

ness. All  nations  have  had  and  still  have  their  trial. 

(2)  Every  man  has  secret  help  from  that  grace  which  is 

on  his  side.  Not  only  after  regeneration  but  before  it  also  God 
Rom  viii  i ^ mysterious  but  most  gracious  and 

certain  truth. 

(3)  The  Christian  probation  proper  is  conducted  under 
the  special  influence  of  the  indwelling  Spirit,  Who  makes  the 


The  Probation  of  the  Gospel. 


279 


lot  of  the  Christian  one  continual  test  of  graces  that  are  disci- 
plined, strengthened,  and  brought  to  perfection  by  trial. 

7.  What  is  the  sum  ? 

That  all  men  are  in  this  life  on  their  trial  for  eternity  ; 
that  the  test  is  now,  not  whether  we  will  abstain  from  the 
tree,  but  whether  we  will  eat  it  and  live  ; and  that  grace  reigns 
most  impressively  over  the  whole  probation. 

8.  But  is  all  left  to  the  decision  of  the  great  day? 

In  one  sense  it  is  so  ; but  meanwhile  provision  is  made 
for  present  assurance  that  the  probation  is  in  process  of  being 
successfully  conducted  towards  its  final  issues. 

§ 2. 

1.  What  is  the  general  testimony  of  the  New  Testament  on 

this  subject  ? 

The  Christian  privilege  is  said  to  be  that  of  the  full 
ASSURANCE  of  faith,  expressed  in  the  spirit  and  language  of 
CONFIDENCE  or  the  liberty  of  boldness  : correlative  words. 

2.  How  are  these  ideas  connected  ? 

The  full  assurance^  or  fulness^  of  faith  (7r\r]po(j>opia)  is 
shewn  in  boldness  to  enter  into  the  holy  place  (TrappTjo-ta). 
But  this  faith  may  be  viewed  as  in  respect  to  its  present 
object  known  : then  it  is  the  ftdl  assurance  of  ^ 
understanding;  and  it  is  shewn  m great  boldness  19.’  ' ’ 
in  the  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  As  it  J'xim’iii.  13 
respects  its  future  object  it  is  the  full  assurance  of  Heb.  vi.  n.‘ 
hope  even  to  the  end ; and  is  shewn  in  not  casting  mi- 28. 
away  the  present  confidence  in  order  that  we  may  have 
boldness^  and  not  be  ashamed  before  Him  at  His  coming. 

3.  How  may  we  treat  assurance  theologically  ? 

By  regarding  first  its  objective  grounds  and  then  its 
subjective  experience. 

4.  What  is  meant  by  objective  assurance? 

Limited  here  to  the  blessings  of  personal  salvation,  it 


28o 


The  SpiriVs  Administration. 


refers  to  the  external  and  standing  pledges  given  by  God  for 
faith  to  rest  upon. 

6.  Where  are  they  to  be  found  ? 

(i)  Ultimately  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ:  As  concern- 
ing that  He  raised  Him  up  from  the  dead  . . . He  hath 
spoken  on  this  wise,  I will  give  you  the  holy  and  sure 
Actsxiii.  34.  blessings  of  David.  He  was  raised  for  our  justi- 
Rom.iv.  25.  fication.  (2)  The  Christian  Church,  with  its  means 
of  grace,  and  sealing  sacraments,  is  a permanent  witness 
of  the  goodwill  of  heaven  in  the  world.  (3)  Especially  the 
word  of  God  with  its  innumerable  promises  in  the  Divine 
standing  assurance  to  man. 

6.  To  what  extent  is  this  outward  assurance  sufficient  ? 

None  who  persistently  trust  in  these  great  pledges  shall 
perish  ; but  it  has  pleased  God  to  give  a corresponding  in- 
ward assurance : that  we  may  have  a strong 

Heb.  VI.  18.  encouragement. 

7.  What  is  the  strict  relation  between  these? 

All  internal  assurance  is  based  upon  the  external ; but 
the  internal  is  distinct  and  direct ; and  in  full  Christian  experi- 
ence the  two  are  to  be  combined. 

8.  Who  is  the  agent  of  internal  assurance? 

The  Holy  Spirit,  Whom  God  hath  given  to  them  that  obey 
Him.^  to  those  who  were  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of 
Acts  V.  32.  promise.  This  gift  is  in  us  the  assuring  seal  : as 
Eph.i.  13.  to  God  that  we  are  His;  as  to  ourselves,  that  we 
know  ourselves  to  be  His. 

9.  How  is  He  the  assuring  seal? 

First  of  our  union  with  Christ  and  interest  in  Him 
generally ; and  then  of  each  special  relation  of  our  common 
privilege.  All  these,  however,  are  generally  united. 

10.  How  of  our  salvation  in  Christ  generally  ? 

The  first  experience  of  faith  is  the  access  into  this  grace 
wherein  we  stand  through  the  personal  reception  of  the  Gospel 
Rom.  V.  2.  and  the  Saviour  : of  this  generally  the  Spirit  is  the 
1 Thess.  i.  5.  seal  ; the  word  comes  in  the  Holy  Ghostj  and  in 


The  Probation  of  the  ospel. 


281 


much  assurance.  No  man  can  say,  Jesus  is  Lord,  but  in  the 
Holy  Spirit,  1 Cor.  xii.  3 

11.  What  is  the  assurance  as  it  respects  the  particular 

privileges  individually  and  distinctly? 

(1)  Of  our  acceptance  as  justified  He  is  the  witness : There 
is  therefore  now  no  condeniJiation  to  them  that  are  in  Christ 
Jesus,  For  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  via.  i 
Jesus  made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death,  2- 

He  speaks  to  the  conscience  the  Lord’s  own  and  peculiar 
words,  Thy  sins  are  forgiven.  For  the  Spirit’s  ^ukev  i 8 
witness  of  pardon  there  is  no  text.  “ evn.48. 

(2)  Of  our  sonship  He  is  the  witness  : confirming  the 
testimony  of  our  regenerate  spirit ; The  Spirit  Himself  heareth 
witness  with  our  spirit.^  that  we  are  children  of 

God,  Our  spirit  of  adoption  as  sons  confirms  our 
regenerate  voice  as  children.  Hence  we  may  read : 15. 

the  Spirit  of  adoption, 

(3)  Of  our  sanctification  He  is  the  silent  seal  by  His  in- 
dwelling : Ye  were  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  Eph.  i.  13, 
promise  . . • unto  the  redemption  of  God's  own  h* 
possession. 

12.  Are  these  distinct  kinds  of  assurance  ? 

So  are  they  described  in  Scripture  ; but  they  all  flow  into 
the  one  common  experience  which  is  said  to  be  this,  that  we 
might  know  the  things  that  are  freely  given  to  us  ^ 
dy  God. 

13.  What  other  characteristics  of  assurance  may  be  named  ? 
That  it  is  the  full  interior  persuasion  of  personal  salvation 

through  Christ  and  in  Christ ; that  in  it  there  is  to  faith  a 
supernatural  revelation  of  its  present  object ; that  it  is  wrought 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  soul  on  or  after  believing ; that  it  is 
the  common  privilege  of  believers ; that,  not  being,  however, 
a condition  of  salvation,  it  is  distinct  from  saving  faith.  These 
are  several  aspects  which  must  be  united  and  reconciled. 

14.  What  is  the  soul’s  state  in  the  absence  of  assurance  ? 

It  is  shut  up  to  the  outward  pledges  of  God,  waiting  for 

the  internal  evidence : faith  as  simple  trust  rests  only  on  the 
word  of  God,  and  saves ; assurance  follows  it  and  makes  it 
perfect  though  not  always  immediately. 


282 


The  spirit's  Administration. 


15.  But  is  it  not  said  that  faith  is  itself  the  evidence  of 

things  not  seen  ? 

That  is  its  perfection  as  the  great  regulator  of  life  on  the 
way  to  eternity.  Faith  'is  the  assurance  of  things  hoped  for^  or 
it  is  the  giving  substance  to  them,  making  them  a 
Heb.xi.  I.  reality  to  hope  ; it  is  the  proving  of  things  not  seen^ 
their  internal  demonstration  to  the  soul  by  a supernatural 
revelation. 

16.  Is  it  not  very  difficult  to  sever  saving  faith  from  assu- 

rance ? 

Hard  as  it  is,  the  distinction  must  be  made.  Faith  is 
necessarily  assured  that  Christ  is  a Saviour ; but  its  personal 
trust  in  Him  may  be  in  its  simplicity  a naked  ven- 
john  XX.  ag.  soul.  Blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen^ 

and  have  believed! 

17.  Is  not  this  the  'distinction  between  the  assurance  of 

faith  and  the  assurance  of  hope  ? 

No : the  only  distinction  between  these  is  as  to  the 
present  possession  and  the  eternal  possession  of  the  blessings 
of  the  covenant : faith  is  sure  now,  hope  is  sure  for  the  future. 

18.  What  is  meant  by  calling  this  witness  a direct  one  ? 

(1)  We  thereby  distinguish  it  from  the  indirect  witness 
which  the  Spirit  bears  in  the  external  means  of  grace.  He 
comes  through  them  into  personal  contact  with  the  spirit  of 
the  believer  : to  it,  with  it,  and  in  it,  working  assurance. 

(2)  Also  from  the  indirect  testimony  which  He  bears 
through  the  fruits  of  the  new  nature  seen  in  the  life. 

19.  Is  this  testimony  of  a changed  heart  and  life  called  the 

Spirit’s  witness? 

Generally  it  is  called  our  own  : He  that  hath  received  His 
witness  hath  set  his  seal  to  this^  that  God  is  true.  It  is  the 
testimony  of  our  own  conscience,  or  moral  consciousness  of 
John  iii  33  ^ State  of  grace : If  our  heart  condemn 

ijohaiii.2i.  US  notj  we  have  boldness  toward  God.  For  our 
2Cor.  1. 12.  glorying  is  thiSy  the  testimony  of  our  conscience,  that 
in  holiness  and  godly  sincerity  . . . The  apostle  here  uses, 


The  Probation  of  the  Gospel.  283 


for  himself  at  least,  the  same  word  (/ca^x^o-ts)  which  he  uses 
when  speaking  of  the  Spirit^s  witness : We  glory  in  Gody 
through  otcr  Lord  Jesus  Christy  through  Whom  we  ^ 
have  now  received  the  reconciliations 

20.  What  is  the  general  strain  of  the  New  Testament  as  to 

the  universality  of  this  privilege? 

Everywhere  it  is  said  to  be  the  common  prerogative  of  the 
estate  of  grace : not  one  given  to  the  advanced  in  godliness ; 
nor  one  to  be  sought  as  a higher  experience.  St.  Paul  says, 
speaking  as  in  the  Mediatorial  court : Being  therefore  justified 
by  faiths^  we  have  peace  with  God  throitgh  otcr  Lord 
Jesus  Christ ; through  Whom  also  we  have  had  our  ^ 

access  by  faith  itito  this  grace  wherein  we  stand ; and  rejoice 
in  hope  of  the  glory  of  God, 

(2)  In  the  temple  we  read  of  the  same  tranquil  confidence 
of  assurance  : Having,^  therefore,^  brethren,  boldness  to  Heb.  x.  19 
enter  , . . let  us  draw  near  with  a true  heart  in  full  —22. 
assurance  of  faith.  We  enter  into  the  same  assured  estate 
of  grace  : whether  as  righteousness  or  sanctification. 

(3)  But  chiefly  as  children  of  God  the  witness  is  ours, 
interior  and  permanent  and  universal:  And  the  witness  is  this^ 
that  God  gave  unto  us  eternal  life,,  and  this  life  is  in  i John  v.  10, 
His  Son.  He  that  hath  the  Son  hath  the  life.  And 

of  him  who  believes  it  is  said  that  he  hath  the  witness  in 
himself 

21.  What  is  the  peculiarity  of  this  last  passage  ? 

That  it  is  the  final  testimony  of  Scripture  to  this  assurance. 

§ 3.  ^perseberance. 

1.  What  place  has  this  term  in  the  Spirit’s  administration  ? 

Strictly  speaking,  it  belongs  to  the  ethics  of  Christian  life. 
But  it  is  introduced  here  to  signify  that  special  grace  which  is 
pledged  to  the  Christian  in  his  probation. 

2.  What  is  the  ground  or  source  of  this  grace  ? 

As  administered  by  the  Spirit,  its  ground  is  the  sufficiency 
of  the  atoning  provision  of  the  Gospel  ; the  intercession  and 
13 


284 


The  SpiriVs  Administration. 


will  of  Christ  ; as  in  the  believer’s  soul  it  is  the  Spirit’s  own 
effectual  indwelling. 

3.  Do  not  these  three,  taken  together,  carry  the  whole 

doctrine  of  a necessary  final  perseverance? 

They  do  so  certainly  as  it  respects  faithful  believers,  who 
are  ttuttol  in  both  senses  of  the  term  : the  called  and  chosen 
Rev.  xvii.  faithful.  These  three  are  not  simply  correla- 
^4-  tive : they  are  progressive  also. 

4.  How  is  onr  Lord’s  intercession  specially  related  to  this  ? 

(1)  He  declares  both  His  will,  and  His  request,  that  His 
Father  would  Keep  them  from  the  evil  one  whom  He  regards 
John  xvii.  given  Him  for  His  own  : that  which  Thou  hast 

15.24.  given  Me,  These  words  imply  that,  though  given 
to  Him,  this  possession  needed  a special  protection  and  might 
be  lost. 

(2)  After  the  ascension  our  Lord  maketh  intercession  for 

US-  Against  every  enemy  that  might  separate  us  from  the 
Rom.  viii.  love  of  Christ  He  Himself  intercedes ; and  the  answer 
Heb.iv  16  prayer  is  grace  to  help  us  in  time  of  need.  But 

2 Cor.  vi.  I.  we  are  exhorted  to  receive  not  the  grace  of  God  in 
vain  : hence  the  effectual  succour  obtained  is  itself  a testi- 
mony to  our  probationary  state  and  conditional  salvation. 

(3)  The  gift  of  the  indwelling  Spirit  is  the  fruit  of  our 
Lord’s  intercession  : Ye  were  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of 
Eph.  i.  13,  promise  . . . unto  the  redemption  of  God^ s own 

^4-  possession : cfe,  unto^  however,  is  not  here  a link 
that  cannot  be  broken. 

5.  Can  the  Saviour’s  love  to  His  own  he  baffled  and  dis- 

appointed ? 

He  Himself  says  : If  a man  abide  not  in  Me^  he  is  cast 
forth  as  a branch  and  is  withered.  And  it  is  hard  to  interpret 
John  XV.  6.  His  lamentation  over  Judas  as  other  than  an  acknow- 
John  xvii.  12.  ledgment  that  he  was  reprobate,  that  is,  rejected  after 
probation : Not  one  of  them  perished^  but  the  son  of  perdition, 

6.  Can  the  Spirit^s  power  be  baffled  in  the  human  spirit? 

We  read  that  He  may  be  grieved,  quenched,  lusted 
against : stages  of  resistance.  That  He  may  be  finally  over- 


The  Probation  of  the  Gospel. 


285 


come  by  persistent  obstinacy  is  never  denied,  Eph.  iv.  30. 
and  in  some  passages  very  plainly  suggested : as  in  ^ Thess.  v. 
St.  Jude’s  words  to  fallen  Christians  having  not  the  gII'v.  17. 
spirit,  b'deig. 

7.  What  Scriptural  argument  is  there  for  a conditional 

guarantee  of  final  salvation  ? 

The  whole  current  of  exhortation,  of  which  one  typical 
example  may  be  given.  The  Word  of  God  thus  warns:  Tahe 
heed,  brethren^  lest  there  be  in  any  one  of  you  an  evil  heart 
of  unbeliefs  in  falling  away  from  the  living  God ; but  Heb.  iii.  12 
exhort  one  another  day  by  day^  so  long  as  it  is  called  --^4- 
To-day ; lest  any  of  you  be  hardened  by  the  deceitfulness  of  sin  : 
for  we  are  become  partakers  of  Chris f if  we  hold  fast  the  begin- 
ning  of  our  confidence  firm  unto  the  end.  The  if  is  emphatic. 

8.  How  is  this  typical  ? 

(1)  It  expressly  makes  the  rejection  of  individuals,  while 
the  nation  as  a whole  was  saved,  .a  warning  example  to 
Christians : the  body  of  Christ  is  absolutely  secure,  but  in- 
dividual salvation  is  viewed  as  probationary. 

(2)  It  deeply  impresses  the  to-day  of  probation. 

(3)  It  speaks  of  a falling  away  from  the  living  God  : this 
is  the  death  of  a soul  that  had  lived  in  God. 

(4)  It  describes  sin  in  its  result  of  hardening  or  reprobation. 

(5)  It  expressly  declares  that  union  with  Christ  eternally 
requires  that  the  confidence  of  assurance  be  held  firm  to  the  end. 

Thus  all  the  elements  of  our  doctrine — probation,  as- 
surance, and  conditional  perseverance — have  their  strongest 
expression  in  this  passage,  the  type  of  many  others. 

9.  But  is  there  not  a glorious  host  of  passages  which  run 

in  another  strain? 

Yes,  in  both  Testaments  ; and  they  must  not  be  despoiled 
of  their  meaning  in  the  interests  of  any  doctrine. 

10.  How  are  these  opposite  strains  to  be  reconciled? 

By  remembering  the  following  points  : 

(i)  That  the  whole  church  perfected  into  one  is  always 
present  in  revelation,  as  already  saved  in  the  Divine  John  xvii 
purpose.  *3- 


286 


The  SpiriVs  Administration. 


(2)  That  one  part  of  the  testimonies  regards  the  accom- 
plishment as  already  foreknown  of  God ; while  the  other 
addresses  us  as  working  out  our  salvation.  As  to  the 
former  : W/iom  He  forehiew^  He  also  foreordained  to  he  con^ 
Rom.  vui.  formed  to  the  image  of  His  Son,  And  whom 

29.30.  foreordained^  them  He  also  called ; and  whom 
He  called^  them  He  also  justified ; and  whom  He  justified^ 
them  He  also  glorified.  As  to  the  former,  there  is  a corre- 
sponding chain  of  virtues  in  which  we  are  bidden  to  give  all 
diligence  to  make  our  calling  and  election  sure ; 
2 Peter  1. 10.  these  things  ye  shall  never  stumble, 

St.  Paul  and  St  Peter  must  here  be  harmonised. 

(3)  That  the  mystery  of  the  reconciliation  is  beyond  our 
faculties ; but  altogether  within  the  range  of  our  practical  duty. 

§ 4.  J^tatoncal. 

1.  What  are  the  relations  of  historical  theology  to  the 

leading  terms  of  this  chapter  ? 

They  have  been  bound  up  together  under  two  very 
different  aspects  : varied  according  to  the  views  held  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  covenant  of  grace  in  Christ. 

2.  Distinguish  these  two. 

(1)  According  to  one,  the  covenant  of  redemption  betwee^i 
the  Father  and  the  Son  as  Mediator  and  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
Administrator  guaranteed  the  salvation  of  a certain  number 
of  the  descendants  of  Adam  : on  this  principle  probation 
loses  its  full  meaning,  assurance  when  reached  is  the  certitude 
of  salvation,  and  perseverance  is  guaranteed  as  final. 

(2)  According  to  the  other,  the  covenant  is  with  Christ 
as  the  Saviour  of  the  race  ; and,  inasmuch  as  the  entire  race 
is  not  saved,  the  probation  of  all  is  the  test  of  each,  assurance 
is  only  of  present  salvation,  and  perseverance  is  a grace  or 
virtue  of  religion  on  which  final  acceptance  depends,  humanly 
speaking,  as  a condition. 

3.  Which  of  these  views  had  the  precedence  in  Christian 

history  ? 

The  latter.  Before  the  time  of  Augustine  the  former,  as 


T he  Probation  of  the  Gospel. 


287 


we  have  seen,  had  no  clear  expression.  Since  the  time  of 
Augustine,  but  especially  since  the  revival  of  Predestinarian- 
ism  by  Calvin,  and  most  .especially  the  Federal  Theology  that 
sprang  out  of  his  system,  the  two  views  of  the  Christian 
covenant  have  ruled  and  divided  theological  opinion  on  these 
subjects.  The  controversy,  however,  becomes  gradually  fainter. 

4.  Do  Predestinarians  base  their  views  of  probation,  assu- 
rance, and  perseverance,  entirely  on  the  immutability 
of  the  covenant  of  redemption  ? 

That  is  their  stronghold  ; by  the  light  of  their  conviction 
on  this  subject  they  interpret  all  Scripture.  Some  passages 
give  them  support ; and  others,  which  fail  them,  they  bend 
into  submission  or  resign  for  future  light. 

6.  But  is  not  the  Absolute  Sovereignty  of  God  their  final 
refuge  ? 

It  may  be  said  to  be  so,  though  many  shrink  from  the 
term.  The  will  of  God,  of  which  He  gives  no  account,  is 
supposed  to  have  been  represented  by  the  Father,  Whose 
counsel  the  Son  covenanted  to  fulfil,  having  a portion  of 
mankind  given  to  Him  of  the  Father  as  His  reward.  The 
Holy  Spirit  enters  into  the  covenant  as  its  future  Admini- 
strator on  behalf  both  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son.  This 
covenant  being  granted,  or  taken  for  granted,  the  final  per- 
severance of  the  saints  needs  no  other  proof : the  Scriptures 
must  be,  they  ought  to  be,  harmonised  with  it. 

6.  Where  is  the  supposed  Scriptural  ground  of  this  ? 

Here  again  the  Predestinarian  acceptation  of  the  Gospel 
does  not  rely  so  much  upon  specific  texts  as  upon  the  entire 
history  and  mystery  of  redemption,  which  is  regarded  as  the 
actual  deliverance  of  those  whose  place  the  Redeemer  took  by 
vicarious  substitution,  suffering  in  their  stead  the  penalty  and 
curse  of  the  law  and  in  their  stead  honouring  that  law  by 
obedience.  The  mind  once  possessed  by  that  thought  finds 
that  the  word  of  revelation  possesses  it  everywhere. 

7.  But  are  there  no  special  passages  ? 

The  Saviour^s  words  are  quoted  : All  that  which  the 


288 


The  SpiriVs  Administration. 


Father  giveth  Me  shall  come  unto  Me,  But  He  adds  : Every 
John  vi.  37.  heard  from  the  Father,^  and  hath 

John  vi.  45.  learned^  cometh  unto  Me;  and,  moreover,  He 
John  xvii.  12.  n-^ourns  over  one  of  those  given  to  Him  as  having 
perished^  as  the  son  of  perdition, 

8.  Is  there  no  more  direct  answer? 

Yes ; all  the  passages  which  speak  of  the  Saviour's 
heritage  and  possession  refer  to  the  portion  of  mankind  who 
are  foreseen  as  saved : whose  salvation  is  now  a present  reality 
to  Omniscience : but  without  any  necessary  reference  to  a pre- 
destinating decree. 

9.  How  does  this  view  of  the  eternal  covenant  affect  the 

doctrine  of  probation  particularly  ? 

The  redeemed  of  the  Lord  are  not  saved  in  the  way  of 
probation.  The  first  Adam's  probation  having  been  a failure, 
under  the  supposed  covenant  of  works,  the  second  Adam  took 
the  probation  on  Himself  and  became  the  Surety  for  His  own  : 
the  test  was  really  His,  not  theirs. 

10.  But  does  not  this  system  allow  any  probation  for  the 

saints  ? 

Yes  ; their  own  works  are  proved  and  found  wanting 
and  rejected  or  reprobate,  in  the  sight  of  God  and  in  their 
own  sight  ; and,  further,  the  issue  of  probation  may  in  their 
case  determine  their  relative  place  in  the  rewards  of  glory. 

11.  Is  this  doing  justice  to  the  system  ? 

Not  quite  : its  whole  economy  of  probation  is  maintained 
on  the  ground  that  the  saints  are  predestined  to  the  means  as 
well  as  to  the  end.  Moreover,  the  conditions  on  which  we  lay 
so  much  stress  are  said  by  its  defenders  to  be  the  very  gifts 
of  the  charter  themselves.  Repentance  and  faith,  for  instance, 
are  certainly  conditions  ; but  grace  alone  gives  them  in  and 
with  and  after  the  new  birth. 

12.  How  does  it  affect  particularly  the  doctrine  of  assu- 

rance ? 

It  lays  the  main  stress  on  the  objective  assurance  of  the 
stability  of  the  covenant  of  redemption.  Personal  subjective 


The  Probation  of  the  Gospel. 


289 


assurance  is  a special  grace,  to  be  sought  and  found ; but, 
when  received,  it  is  an  assurance  for  ever. 

13.  What  may  be  said  of  this? 

That,  on  the  one  hand,  it  limits  unduly  a blessing 
which  is  made  in  the  New  Testament  a common  privilege  ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  unduly  enlarges  that  privilege, 
making  it  include  confidence  of  final  perseverance. 

14.  Then,  as  to  final  perseverance,  what  is  its  precise 

doctrine  ? 

That  none  for  whom  Christ  died  can  perish : they  being 
not  only  ordained  to  eternal  life  but  also  to  that  way  of  watch- 
fulness and  diligence  in  probation  which  leads  to  it. 

15.  Is  this  latter  point  essential  to  predestinarianism  ? 

It  is  much  used  in  argument,  and  still  more  in  the  earnest 
lives  of  those  who  use  it  ; but  it  is  not  essential,  for  Christ 
has  obtamed  eternal  redemption.  He  who  has  built  ^ ^ 
on  the  foundation  may  see  all  his  superstructure  i cor]m^%. 
burnt,  but  he  himself  shall  he  saved ; yet  so  as  j^o^hn 
through  fire.  He  is  ordained  to  eternal  life  : con- 
cerning which  our  Saviour  said,  I give  unto  them  eternal  life ; 
and  they  shall  never  perish. 

16.  Can  this  quaternion  of  texts  be  withstood  ? 

No  ; they  are  the  everlasting  sheetanchor,  entering  into 
that  which  is  within  the  veil.,  for  all  who  continue  in  Heb.  vi.  19. 
the  faith,  grounded  and  stedfast,  and  not  moved  away  Coi.  i.  23. 
from  the  hope  of  the  gospel.  But  they  may  be  dangerously 
perverted. 

(1)  With  regard  to  the  first,  the  eternal  redemption  is  not 
in  any  way  limited  : nor  can  it  be,  for  St.  John,  speaking 
expressly  of  the  Advocate  for  His  people  as  possibly  sinning, 
adds  that  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins  ; and 

not  for  ours  only.,  but  also  for  the  whole  world.  ijohnu  1,2. 

(2)  As  to  the  second,  St.  Paul  is  speaking  of  false  teachers 
who  erect  on  the  one  foundation  a perishable  superstructure. 

(3)  The  Teray/xeVot  to  eternal  life  are  those  then  disposed 
or  set  in  order  for  it.  Fereordination  or  predestination  to  life 
is  not  a scriptural  idea:  we  are  foreordained  only  to  be  con- 


2Q0 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


formed  to  the  image  of  His  So7i ; and  that  not  in  the  future 
Rom.viii.29.  only,  though  then  preeminently. 

(4)  Our  Saviour  adds  : No  one  shall  pluck  them  out  of  My 
hand.  He  does  not  say  that  they  may  not  leave  Him  and  no 
John  X 28  follow  Him.  Nor  could  He  : for,  in  His  only 

John  vi.  66.  other  allegory,  that  of  the  vine,  which  is  the  pendant 
John  XV.  6.  sheep,  He  says  : If  a ma^i  abide  not  in 

Me^  he  is  cast  forth  as  a branchy  and  is  withered,  John  x.  and 
XV.  must  not  be  divided. 


17.  On  what  other  texts  does  this  theory  of  the  gospel  rely? 

Three  classes  may  be  mentioned,  which  have  reference  to 
the  three  estates  of  justification,  regeneration  and  sanctifica- 
tion respectively. 

(1)  As  to  an  eternal  and  necessary  justification:  And 
P ...  whom  He  called^  them  He  also  justified ; and  whom 

0m.v1n.30.  justified^  the7n  He  also  glorified, 

(2)  As  to  a new  life  never  to  be  forfeited  : Having  been 
I Pet.  i.  23.  begotten^  not  of  corruptible  seed^  but  of  incorruptible. 

(3)  As  to  an  inviolable  sanctification  to  God  : By  which 

will  we  have  been  sanctified  through  the  offei'mg  oj 
Heb.x.  10.  body  of  Jesus  Chi'ist  once  for  all. 


18.  How  may  the  evidence  of  these  be  resisted  ? 

There  is  no  need  to  resist  them  : they  are  the  strength  of 
religion.  They  are  the  glorious  things  spoken  of  the  church  ; 
and  belong  to  every  one  who  is  faithful.  The  justification  of 
the  first  passage,  however,  is  after  all  only  one  link  in  a chain 
of  events  looked  back  upon  as  from  the  fixed  future.  The 
indestructible  life  is  such  in  contrast  with  all  the 
glory  of  the  flesh  : it  is  nowhere  said  that  the  living 
may  not  become  twice  dead.  The  eternal  sanctifica- 
tion is  the  lot  of  the  holy^  who  are  to  be  made  holy 
yet  more.  The  once  for  all  refers  to  the  offering  of  the  Lord’s 
Body  and  not  to  its  virtue  in  us. 


I Pet.  i.  24. 
Jude  12. 
Rev.  xxii.  il. 
Heb.  X.  10. 


19.  But  is  not  the  true  view  of  our  present  trilogy  of 
doctrines  concerned  with,  other  systems  than  the  pre- 
destinarian  ? 

Undoubtedly : the  truth  of  probation  is  a test  of  almost 
every  Christian  theory. 


The  Probation  of  the  Gospel. 


291 


20.  How,  for  instance,  does  it  affect  sacramentarianism  ? 

That  system,  fully  developed,  tends  in  no  small  degree  to 
lighten  the  sacred  burden  of  personal  responsibility  ; and,  in 
every  form,  its  danger  is  that  of  diminishing  the  sense  of  the 
unspeakable  solemnity  of  probation. 

21.  Is  there  no  opposite  danger  ? 

That  of  those  who  refuse  the  doctrine  of  assurance,  and 
decry  it  as  fanaticism  ; making  the  whole  religious  discipline 
of  life  a fearful  looking  for  of  final  decision.  We  cai.v.  5. 
through  the  Sph'it  wait  for  the  hope  of  righteousness  ‘v.  4* 
by  faith  : this  is  for  cautionary  use  on  one  side.  Rejoice  in 
the  Lord  alway : this  is  the  tranquillising  counterpart  on  the 
other. 

22.  How  does  onr  doctrine  bear  on  theories  of  the  future? 

(1)  The  true  view  of  probation,  embracing  all  its  meaning, 
is  inconsistent  with  any  moral  test  in  the  intermediate  estate  : 
though  the  day  of  judgment  is  its  limit,  it  is  such  only  as 
making  finally  manifest  the  issues  of  a probation  in 

time  : It  is  appointed  unto  7nen  once  to  die^  and  after 
this  judgment. 

(2)  The  annihilation  of  the  reprobate  might  be  har- 
monised with  one  meaning  of  reprobation  ; but  not  with  the 
full  significance  of  a judgment  in  which  each  one 

may  receive  the  things  done  in  the  body^  according  to  * 
what  he  hath  done. 

(3)  Universal  restoration  is  not  consistent  with  our 
doctrine  : as  probation  would  on  any  interpretation  of  that 
bold  theory  be  overpowered  by  a grace  omnipotent. 

23.  But  what  is  the  theological  error  which  the  teaching 

of  scripture  most  firmly  opposes? 

Antinomianism,  theoretical  and  practical. 

24.  And  how  does  our  doctrine  effectually  oppose  it? 

By  enforcing  Christian  Morals  as  the  Ethics  of  Redemp- 
tion. 


13* 


292 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


Chapter  VI. 

g^nsfian  ^JTorals;  ov  tl)e  §tf)ics  of 

1.  What  do  we  understand  by  Christian  morals? 

The  conduct  of  life  according  to  the  principles  contained 
in  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  Who,  as  the  Incarnate  Son  of 
God,  is  the  Supreme  Lawgiver. 

2.  Why  is  this  subject  introduced  under  the  Holy  Spirit’s 

administration  ? 

Because  the  new  moral  life  springs  out  of  that  estate  of 
^race  into  which  the  Holy  Spirit  introduces  believers.  We 
have  seen  what  that  estate  is,  and  its  probationary  character  : 
it  remains  that  we  consider  what  the  new  life  is,  as  the  fruit 
of  redemption,  and  how  in  it  the  Christian  probation  is 
regulated  and  successfully  accomplished. 

3.  Is  this  what  is  meant  by  the  second  title,  the  Ethics  of 

Redemption  ? 

Ethics  and  morals  are  terms  derived  from  the  Greek 
and  Latin  to  designate  the  moral  or  ethical  habit.  But 
their  connection  with  redemption  implies  two  things  : (i)  they 
are  the  new  life  as  based  upon  the  fundamental  principles  of  our 
redemption  generally  in  Christ ; and  (2)  they  are  the  new  life 
as  springing  from  that  redemption  personally  experienced. 

4.  But  do  we  not  thus  unduly  limit  the  field  of  morals  ? 

By  no  means  : for  ( i ) redemption  is  universal  in  its  effect 
on  mankind,  and  therefore  morals  in  their  widest  range  may 
be  connected  with  it  ; and  (2)  personal  redemption  prepares 
those  who  receive  it  to  exhibit  morality  in  all  its  depart- 
ments, leaving  none  of  them  unguided  by  precepts. 


The  Ethics  of  Redemption. 


'^93 


5.  How  may  the  subject,  thus  viewed,  be  unfolded? 

By  first  considering  the  specific  principles  of  the  Christian 
moral  system.  After  this  we  may  take  up  the  application  of 
these  principles  in  relation  to  personal  character,  and  in  relation 
to  the  community  of  Christian  life  : that  is,  Applied  Ethics. 


L 

principles  of  f^risfian  §t^\cs  as  suc^. 

1.  What  are  our  main  subjects  here? 

First,  we  are  bound  by  our  loyalty  to  pay  homage  to  the 
New  Lawgiver  ; then  we  may  study  His  legislation  in  relation 
to  moral  philosophy  as  a science  ; and  lastly,  mark  the  new 
principles  of  Christian  law  as  based  on  the  gospel. 

2.  But  is  there  not  a preliminary  difficulty  in  the  word 

New,  in  relation  to  eternal  and  unchangeable  morality? 

Not  when  rightly  understood.  The  word  new  is  a relative 
one,  and  has  three  meanings  in  theology : it  is  here  the  con- 
summation of  the  old  ; it  is  a beginning  as  having  all  the 
force  of  a higher  revelation  ; and  it  is  the  beginning  of  a better 
order.  In  all  these  senses  the  Christian  legislation  is  new. 

§ 1.  graus  CDtnst  iLatogiber. 

1.  What  is  the  full  meaning  of  the  term  lawgiver? 

It  has  two  senses.  First  and  chiefly,  that  of  a supreme 
authority  in  imposing  moral  law  : There  is  one 
lawgiver,  Subordinately,  that  of  a delegate  or 
minister  appointed  to  deliver  and  set  in  order  the  various 
ordinances  of  that  supreme  Lawgiver : Did  not 
Moses  give  you  the  law  f 

2.  In  which  sense  is  our  Lord  the  lawgiver? 

In  both.  As  the  Eternal  Son,  He  has  Divine  authority  : 
that  all  may  honour  the  Son,,  even  as  they  honour  John  v.  23. 
the  Father.  As  the  Incarnate  Lord,  He  is  set  as  a Heb.iii.e. 


294 


The  Spirit’s  Administration. 


Son  over  His  own  house  with  a delegated  supremacy.  In 
both,  as  united,  He  is  the  fountain  of  law  : Hear 

Matt  xvii.5.  TT'  t 

ye  Him  ! 

3.  Do  we  note  any  distinction  between  these  in  the  New 

Testament  ? 

It  is  the  characteristic  teaching  both  of  the  Gospels  and 
of  the  Epistles  that  in  His  undivided  Person  the'  Lord  Christ 
is  the  final  authority.  They  do  not  ask  in  what  sense. 

4.  But  is  there  not  a special  relation  between  the  Lord’s 

supremacy  in  morals  and  His  mediatorial  work  ? 

Undoubtedly  there  is ; as  the  doctrine  of  the  three  offices 
has  shown,  (i)  As  to  us  : by  His  atoning  death  the  con- 
demnation of  the  law  has  been  removed,  and  the  Spirit 
obtained  for  our  new  obedience.  (2)  As  to  Himself:  He 
acquired,  as  God-man,  supreme  authority  over  the  redeemed 
world,  which  He  has  made  His  own  kingdom. 

5.  Is  He  not,  however,  presented  to  us  as  setting  an 

example  of  obedience  ? 

Yes:  but  in  this  matter  we  must  carefully  distinguish. 

(1)  The  Son  was  made  under  the  law^  as  He  was  made 
a curse  for  us  and  was  made  flesh  : being  in  these  three 

respects  still  essentially  Divine.  It  was  God  who 
GaLiH.13  became  flesh,  the  Blessed  One  who  bore  the  curse, 
{ieb  V 8^*  Lawgiver  above  law  who  learned  ohedience  : 

that  is,  who  learned,  not  to  obey,  but  what  His 
suffering  obedience  meant  and  required. 

(2)  His  example  was  that  of  perfect  love  to  God  and 
man  : shown  in  His  absolute  self-sacrifice,  to  which  indeed  His 
character  as  exemplary  is  generally  limited  throughout  the 
New  Testament.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  He  is  the 

supreme  model  (woSay/xa)  of  our  aspiration,  rather 
johnxiii.15.  example  of  our  religion  in  detail:  a perfect 

EXEMPLAR  rather  than  a perfect  example. 

6.  What  were  the  characteristics  of  our  Lord’s  legislation  ? 

It  must  be  viewed  in  respect  of  the  moral  law  generally, 
and  particularly  of  that  form  of  the  law  which  already  existed 
among  the  Jewish  people. 


The  Ethics  of  Redemption. 


295 


7.  How  did  He  treat  tlie  Jewish  law  ? 

He  honoured  it  at  all  points  as  being  Himself  a minister 
of  the  circumcision.  But  in  honouring  it  He  dissolved  it  as  it 
was  a ceremonial  law,  fulfilled  in  Himself  the  great  reality  : this 
however  was  clearly  seen  only  after  Pentecost.  The  political 
laws  of  the  old  theocracy  were  silently  changed  into  the  laws 
of  the  new  kingdom  of  heaven.  Of  the  moral  law,  as  running 
through  the  Mosaic  legislation,  and  summed  up  in  ^ ^ 
the  decalogue.  He  specially  said  : I came  not  to  ^ 
destroy^  but  to  fulfil, 

8.  What  was  His  relation  to  moral  law  generally? 

He  came  to  restore  man  to  obedience.  The  end  of  the  law 
unto  righteousness.  This  may  be  said  to  have  been 
the  ultimate  design  of  His  whole  work.  Hence  His 
doctrine  is  the  foundation  of  ethics : the  particular  doctrines 
of  the  faith  are  all  bound  up  with  morals  ; and  morals  or 
godliness  are  their  crown  and  end. 

§ 2.  Christian  iLato  ant  lEtttcal  Shencr. 

1.  What  is  to  be  understood  by  ethical  science  and  moral 

philosophy  ? 

That  branch  of  knowledge  which  is  concerned  with  human 
nature  as  morally  constituted  : that  is,  as  amenable  to  the 
law  of  right  and  wrong. 

2.  How  is  Christian  morality  related  to  this  ? 

Precisely  as  natural  theology  is  related  to  supernatural 
revelation.  The  ethical  science  of  Christianity  acknowledges 
and  builds  on  the  fundamental  principles  of  natural  ethics  ; 
but  its  peculiar  doctrines  give  them  new  applications,  running 
through  the  whole  course  of  morals. 

3.  Is  there  merely  an  analogy  between  the  two  ? 

More  than  that  ; for  they  are  essentially  one  : the  natural 
religion  of  the  world  was  the  foundation  of  its  moral  philo- 
sophy before  the  coming  of  Christ ; and,  since  then,  the  case 
has  been  very  much  the  same. 


The  Spirit's  A dministration. 


2q6 


4.  What  are  the  fandamental  principles  of  ethical  science 
which  the  Christian  legislation  accepts? 

All  those  which  are  really  fundamental : such,  namely,  as 
are  expressed  in  the  universal  language  of  mankind  as  belong- 
ing to  the  ideas  of  Duty,  Virtue  and  the  Chief  Good. 

6.  How  does  Christianity  treat  the  first  ethical  idea,  that  of 
duty? 

The  idea  of  duty — expressed  by  the  terms  obligation,  right 
and  wrong,  conscience,  ought  and  must,  law,  judgment,  reward, 
and  punishment  — remains  unaltered;  but  Christianity,  or 
rather  revelation,  alone  gives  the  ground  of  moral  obligation. 

6.  How  is  this  to  be  established  ? 

The  science  of  ethics,  as  independent,  has  been  what  its 
theories  on  this  subject  have  made  it.  One  theory  finds  the 
ground  of  morals,  or  that  which  makes  good  to  be  good,  in 
the  fitness  of  things  : a vague  and  unmeaning  notion. 
Another  in  the  idea  of  right,  which  begs  the  question  ; 
another  in  the  subjective  moral  sense  of  mankind,  which 
denies  an  immutable  standard  ; another  in  the  idea  of  bene- 
volence or  the  good  of  the  whole,  which  is  Utilitarianism, 
under  many  forms  ; another  in  the  general  principle  of 
evolution,  which  neither  fears  God  in  His  authority  nor 
regards  man  in  his  dignity.  Christianity  rises  above  all  these. 

7.  What  then  is  its  teaching? 

That  man,  created  in  the  image  of  God,  has  the  ground 
of  obligation  as  a creature  in  the  Divine  nature,  and  as  a 
moral  agent  in  the  Divine  will. 

8.  How  does  Christianity  here  supplement  the  deficiencies  of 

ethical  science  ? 

By  its  three  doctrines  of  the  fall,  redemption  and  eternal 
judgment  : the  first  explaining  how  man  knows  a duty  which 
he  cannot  fulfil  ; the  second  how  he  may  both  know  it  and 
fulfil  it ; and  the  third  what  the  issues  of  his  responsibility  are. 


The  Ethics  of  Redemption. 


297 


9.  How  does  it  deal  with  the  second  ethical  idea,  of  virtue  ? 

By  accepting  here  also  the  entire  vocabulary : for  instance, 
as  seen  in  the  ancient  and  universal  cardinal  virtues,  formed 
into  habits,  of  wisdom,  temperance,  courage,  and  justice.  But 
it  imports  the  true  grounds  and  principles  of  virtue  and  glori- 
fies it  in  every  sphere. 

10.  How  is  this  to  be  seen  ? 

In  many  ways.  The  noblest  conception  of  virtue,  apart 
from  revelation,  was  the  Stoic  subjection  of  sense  to  reason  : 
Christianity  makes  it  the  ascendency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  con- 
forming the  whole  man  to  the  holiness  of  God.  The  four 
cardinal  virtues  have  become  the  three  theological  graces  of 
faith,  hope,  and  charity.  The  standard  of  virtue  is  the  per- 
fection of  human  nature  as  seen  in  the  Son  of  God.  And 
the  virtues  which  ethical  science  describes  as  unattainable 
Christianity  brings  within  human  reach. 

11.  And  how  is  the  third  idea  treated,  that  of  the  summun 

bonum  or  chief  good  ? 

The  best  definition  in  ethical  science — from  Aristotle  to 
Kant — Christianity  accepts : It  is  that  which  is  sought  as  an 
end  in  itself  and  not  as  means  to  an  end.  But  the  chief  good 
of  man  is  shown  to  be  not  happiness  but  blessedness : blessed- 
ness IN  God. 

12.  In  what  other  respects  do  Christian  ethics  correct  the 

natural  systems  ? 

(1)  By  treating  the  subject  as  more  than  merely  psycho- 
logical : that  is,  not  simply  a study  of  the  make  and  constitu- 
tion of  the  human  soul  as  it  now  is.  Many  of  the  best  moral 
systems  have  erred  by  studying  the  phenomena  of  human 
nature  in  themselves  and  too  exclusively. 

(2)  By  limiting  it  to  its  proper  object : the  moral  rela- 
tions of  man.  Ancient  and  modern  ethical  systems  have  gone 
on  the  principle  that  the  whole  sum  of  human  interest  and 
duties  must  be  included.  .Esthetics,  jurisprudence,  social 
science,  politics,  are  here  only  indirectly  concerned. 


2q8 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


(3)  By  making  the  entire  science  hang  upon  Christian 
doctrine;  and  teaching  all  morals  in  their  connection  with 
redemption  : thus  introducing  a totally  new  vocabulary  as 
well  as  enlarging  the  meaning  of  almost  every  word  in  the  old. 

(4)  Lastly,  by  taking  the  subject  out  of  the  sphere  of 
philosophy,  which  is  the  pursuit  of  wisdom,  and  making  it 
the  practical  directory  of  the  new  life  in  Christ. 

§ 3.  iPrmtiples  of  ®l)rtatian  l^oralitp. 

1.  What  is  meant  by  these  fundamental  principles  ? 

They  are  certain  leading  characteristics  which  are  brough 
into  prominence  by  the  Christian  legislation. 

2.  Only  brought  into  prominence  ? 

It  can  hardly  be  said  that  any  of  them  are  positively  new ; 
but,  though  they  are  latent  in  other  legislation,  only  in  this 
are  they  made  supreme. 

3.  Which  are  these  principles  ? 

They  might  be  summed  up  in  one  word,  love,  as  itseli 
the  summary  of  all  law  and  all  fulfilment  of  law.  But  it  will 
be  well  to  resolve  this  into  three  ideas,  given  us  by  our  Lord 
Himself  and  His  servants  : the  unity  of  the  law  as  love ; the 
spirituality  of  its  interpretation ; and  the  liberty  of  its 
obedience. 

% 

iLote  ant  iLato. 

4.  How  has  our  Lord  connected  love  and  law? 

(1)  By  making  all  duty,  that  is,  the  whole  of  practical 
religion,  one  in  the  love  of  God.  This  precept,  found  in  the 

law,  He  for  the  first  time  stamped  as  the  great 

Deut.  vL  5.  ^ 

^ AND  FIRST  COMMANDMENT. 

(2)  By  combining  with  this  a second  like  unto  which 
Matt.  xxii.  He  for  the  first  time  declared  to  contain  all  duty 

38,39-  to  man  : Thou  shall  love  thy  neighbotu'  as  thyself, 

{2)  Thus  making  all  true  self-love  and  love  of  the  neigh- 
bour one;  and  placing  that  unity  in  the  love  of  God  which 


The  Ethics  of  Redemption. 


299 


must  be  frorn  all  thy  heart and  from  all  thy  soulj  and  from 
all  thy  mind.,  and  from  all  thy  strength.  All  other 
love  must  be  part  of  the  love  of  God  and  flow  from  it. 

6.  Was  not  this  in  the  old  legislation  ? 

The  precepts  were  there,  but  not  as  combined  ; and  not 
as  the  compendium  of  all  duty  : in  these  two  com-  Matt. xxii. 
mandments  hangeth  the  whole  law^  and  the  prophets  40. 

(not  only  Ik  but  hi), 

6.  What  effect  had  this  on  later  teaching? 

The  hour  when  our  Lord  thus  spoke  was  the  most  glorious 
crisis  in  morals  ; and  its  influence  is  felt  throughout  the  New 
Testament  : every  one  of  our  Lord’s  teachers  pays  his  tribute 
to  love  as  the  unity  of  all  obligation. 

7.  How  does  St.  Paul  pay  his  tribute? 

(1)  The  end  of  the  charge  is  charity^  even  as  iTim.  i.  5. 

Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law,  Rom.  x.  4. 

(2)  In  his  hymn  to  charity  he  shows  that  all  religion  is 

love  : negatively,  without  it  I am  nothing^  and  1 cor.  xin. 
positively,  the  greatest  of  these  is  love,  2, 13. 

(3)  With  special  reference  to  the  neighbour,  he 
says,  lofue,,  therefore^  is  the  fulfilment  of  law^  and  10.' 
the  bond  of  perfectness, 

8.  And  how  St.  Peter? 

Not  so  expressly.  But  as  he  makes  faith  the  beginning  or 
so  he  makes  love  the  end  or  tcAos  charity  of 
religion  : and  to  love  of  the  brethren,,  charHty  or  love.  ^ Rot.1.7. 

9.  What  is  St.  J ames’s  testimony  ? 

He  calls  love royal  law:  with  reference,  however,  to 
the  Lord’s  second  commandment,  concerning  which 
he  adds.  If  ye  fulfil  it  ye  do  well  (reXctrc,  a great  word). 

10.  And  how  does  St.  John  crown  the  whole? 

He  alone  absolutely  makes  all  religion  love:  not,  as  the 
others,  referring  it  to  the  neighbour:  God  is  love;  ijohniv.  16 
and  he  that  abideth  in  love  abideth  m God,,  and  God 
abideth  in  him.  Perfect  love  casteth  out  fear. 


300 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


11.  Does  all  this  mean  that  love  is  substituted  for  law? 

By  no  means  : summing  up  is  not  absorbing  or  anni- 
hilating. 

12.  In  what  other  sense  is  love  the  unity  of  the  law  ? 

In  that  it  is  the  fulfiller  as  well  as  the  fulfilment. 

13.  How  is  it  the  fulfiller  ? 

(1)  It  is  the  strongest  principle  of  our  nature:  as  re- 
Gai.  V.  6.  generate  it  worketh  through  love, 

(2)  As  delight  in  God  and  gratitude  for  redemption,  it  is 
, , . the  response  of  God’s  love.  We  love  because  He 

first  loved  us. 

(3)  It  is  the  guardian  of  the  law  : jealous  of  its  honour. 
Ps.  cxix.  97.  O how  love  I Thy  law  ! 

(4)  It  is  the  expositor  of  law  where  it  does  not  speak  in 
. precepts  : abounding  in  knowledge  and  all  discern- 

Matt.  xxvi.  (S)  It  is  the  infallible  arbiter  in  cases  of  casuistry. 
10-  She  hath  wrought  a good  work  upon  Me, 

14.  What  effect  on  Christian  ethics  has  this  whole  doctrine  ? 
If  love  is  the  unity  of  law  and  fulfilment,  then  (i)  we 

need  not  fall  short  of  obedience,  and  (2)  we  cannot  go  beyond 
it  in  works  of  supererogation.  Both  these  are  esta- 
om.xni.g.  jjr  other  Commandment 

rightly  understood. 

^pmtuaUtp  of  Interpretation. 

15.  What  may  we  understand  by  this  generally? 

As  to  the  law  itself,  that  all  its  precepts  have  an  applica- 
tion wider  than  the  letter  ; and  as  to  the  performer,  that 
obedience  lies  in  the  intention. 

16.  How  has  the  Lord  given  prominence  to  this  ? 
Throughout  His  teaching  ; but  especially  in  the  sermon 

on  the  mount.  In  the  first  part  of  it  the  spiritual  meaning  is 
brought  out : as,  for  instance,  that  the  prohibition  of  murder 
Matt.  V.  22.  adultery  extends  to  every  form  of  anger  and  lust. 

Matt.  vi.  22.  In  the  second  part,  the  single  eye  is  explained  and 
illustrated.  The  breadth  of  the  law  and  the  obedience  of  the 
heart  are  the  two  leading  ideas  of  the  whole  discourse. 


The  Ethics  of  Redemption. 


301 


17.  Can  the  spiritual  interpretation  be  called  a new  prin- 

ciple of  the  Christian  legislation  ? 

By  no  means.  The  best  heathen  morality  laid  stress  upon 
it.  The  Mosaic  legislation  used  the  very  words  which  have 
been  quoted  as  giving  the  characteristic  of  Christianity  : And 
the  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thine  hearty  and  peut.  xxx. 
the  heart  of  thy  seed^  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  ^4- 
all  thine  heart.  And  again  : The  word  is  very  nigh  unto  thee^ 
in  thy  mouthy  and  in  thy  hearty  that  thou  mayest  do  it, 

18.  Did  not  these  passages  point  onward  to  the  gospel  ? 

Yes  ; but  they  had  their  application  on  the  way.  The 
ethics  of  psalmist  and  prophet  are  in  the  highest  Ps.  cxix.  96, 
strain  of  spirituality  : Thy  commandment  is  exceeding 
broad  ! Thy  word  have  I hid  in  mine  heart  ! 

19.  What  means  then  the  preeminence  of  the  gospel  as  a 

ministration  of  the  Spirit? 

Undoubtedly  it  was  the  characteristic  of  the  old  covenant 
that  its  legislation  was  a ministration  of  death.^  written  and 
engraven  on  stones^  and  of  the  letter;  while  the  new  ^ cor.  iii. 
covenant  is  a mmistration  of  the  Spirit.  The  latter  7,  6. 
brings  the  spiritual  meaning  in  Christ  of  the  typical  letter  in 
Moses  ; and  also  the  spiritual  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  from 
which  alone  the  true  obedience  can  flow. 

20.  What  form  does  the  principle  take  in  the  later  New 
Testament  ? 

It  is  more  closely  linked  with  the  fully  developed  doctrines 
of  regeneration  and  the  indwelling  Spirit.  The  law  ^ ^or  ii  i 
is  regarded  as  spoken  to  the  spiritual  inner  man  : Heb°  viii.  10. 
he  that  is  spiritual  judgeth  all  things.  It  is  written 
ON  their  heart.  And  it  is  obeyed  from  the  heart. 

21.  How  then  may  we  state  the  application  of  this  prin- 

ciple in  Christian  legislation  ? 

(i)  In  the  interpretation  of  the  moral  code  of  the  Old 
Testament  generally  and  of  the  decalogue  in  particular : every 


302 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


one  of  the  ten  words  of  which  must  have  a large  and  spiritual 
meaning  put  into  its  letter. 

(2)  In  the  interpretation  of  the  Lord’s  own  precepts  : for 
Luke  xviii.  instance,  in  those  which  were  designed  for  a transi- 

22.  tional  state,  such  as  Sell  all  thou  hast  ! 

(3)  In  the  application  of  every  precept  universally,  which, 
as  it  has  a letter,  so  must  have  a much  wider  meaning  than 
the  letter. 

22.  What  has  to  he  guarded  against  here? 

(i)  That  the  letter  never  be  forgotten,  while  the  spiritual 
meaning  is  observed  ; (2)  that  the  spiritual  meaning  never  be 
forgotten,  while  the  letter  is  observed. 

iLitertp  anij  iLaiu. 

23.  What  is  the  relation  of  these  two  terms? 

Taken  together,  they  express  the  great  truth  which 
Christian  legislation  first  taught,  that  perfect  obedience  is 
perfect  freedom. 

24.  As  to  the  law  itself,  or  obedience  to  the  law? 

As  to  the  latter  first  and  chiefly  : perfect  obedience  is 
unconsciousness  of  law,  which  is  lost  in  love. 

25.  How  can  that  be? 

The  supreme  proof  is  the  supreme  illustration  : our  Lord’s 
perfect  love  to  God  and  man  was  expressed  in  the  must  of 
a most  perfect  obedience:  I must  be  about  My 
Luke  11. 49-  Pather^s  business.  But  absolute  necessity  in  Him 
was  absolute  freedom. 

26.  As  our  ethical  Master  does  He  apply  this  to  us? 

He  graciously  promises  to  make  us  partakers  of  His  own 
johnviii  36.  hhcrty  : If  therefore  the  Son  shall  make  you  free., 
johnxiv.23.  ye  shall  be  free  indeed.  Again  : If  a man  love  Me^ 
Gal.  V.  18.  My  word.  And,  If  ye  are  led  by  the 

Spirit.,  ye  are  not  under  the  law, 

27.  How  does  the  term  liberty  apply  to  the  law  itself  as 

external  ? 

That  is  a more  difficult  question  ; and  one  that  must  be 
carefully  handled,  so  as  to  avoid  opposite  extremes. 


The  Ethics  of  Redemption. 


303 


28.  Which  are  the  two  extremes  ? 

One  is  what  may  be  called  Pharisaism  ; and  the  other 
Antinomianism : the  best  method  of  ascertaining  what  Chris- 
tian liberty  from  law  means  is  to  consider  it  in  relation  to  these. 

29.  What  is  the  former? 

We  call  it  Pharisaism,  because  our  Lord  made  the 
Pharisees  its  representatives.  It  may  be  termed  legalism,  or 
nomism ; and  means  that  religion  is  summed  up,  not  in  love 
but  in  obedience  to  external  commandment. 


30.  What  is  Christian  liberty,  as  protecting  from  this? 

It  rejoices  in  being  no  longer  under  the  law  as  a law  that 
condemns.  And  it  rejoices  in  being  under  the  influence  ot 
the  Spirit  of  love  in  obeying  its  precepts. 

31.  What  is  the  latter,  Antinomianism? 

As  doctrinal,  it  holds  that  Christ  has  vicariously  fulfilled 
the  law  as  well  as  suffered  its  penalty  : that  therefore  ...  ^ 
believers  have  nothing  to  do  with  law.  As  practical,  ^ * 
it  abuses  its  liberty  to  licentiousness.  These  are  the  enemies  of 
the  cross  of  Christ 


32.  What  is  Christian  liberty,  as  protecting  from  this? 

Its  watchword  is  the  doctrine  that  the  gospel  is  the  perfect 
law  of  liberty  : its  perfection  being  that  its  liberty  is  j 25. 
under  law  to  Christy  and  that  its  law  is  the  royal  i Cor.  ix.  21. 
law  of  love. 


33.  Are  there  any  other  applications  of  the  principle? 

Yes,  there  are  two  : (i)  As  to  things  indifferent  ; (2)  As 
to  the  voluntary  imposition  of  laws  on  self.  The  Christian 
man  is  free  to  be  a law  unto  himself  in  all  these  things. 

§ 4.  2T!)e  Codifitati'on  of  Christian 
1.  What  is  meant  by  this? 

The  consideration  of  the  inquiry  how  far  and  in  what  way 
Christianity  proposes  a systematic  body  of  moral  rules  ; like 
those,  for  instance,  of  the  levitical  economy. 


304 


The  Spirifs  Administration. 


2.  And  how  may  the  question  he  generally  answered? 

By  saying  that  as  there  is  One  Lawgiver  His  methods 
have  been  one  throughout  revelation  : Christian  ethics  are 
taught  on  the  whole  exactly  as  Jewish  were. 

3.  Is  this  literally  true? 

(1)  Jehovah  in  the  Pentateuch  uttered  some  eternal  laws, 
and  summed  them  up  in  the  perfect  love  of  Himself  ; Jehovah 
in  the  New  Testament,  our  Lord,  points  to  the  decalogue  as 
the  way  of  life,  making  however  that  spiritual  interpretation 
prominent  which  is  really  the  interpretation  of  love. 

(2)  Statutes  were  given,  at  great  length,  referring  to  the 
theocracy  ; our  Lord  abolishes  them,  but  only  to  substitute  the 
laws  of  His  kingdom  : which  are  mainly,  though  not  entirely, 
the  precepts  that  regulate  the  fellowship  of  the  church. 

(3)  As  circumstances  arise  the  ethics  of  both  Testaments 
adapt  themselves.  We  see  the  same  gradually  developed 
ethical  system  : from  patriarchal  to  levitical  and  prophetical 
legislation  in  the  Old  ; from  Gospel  to  Acts  and  Epistles  in 
the  New.  The  analogy  is  almost  perfect. 

4.  Is  then  the  moral  legislation  and  is  the  standard  of  morals 

in  the  Old  Testament  the  same  as  that  of  the  New? 

Yes:  allowance  being  made  (i)  for  the  great  principles 
already  referred  to  ; and  (2)  for  the  special  adaptation  of 
many  statutes  not  good — not  permanently  good — to 
Ezek. XX. 25.  hardness  of  the  people’s  hearts;  and  remember- 
ing further  that  (3)  many  actions  recorded  in  the  history  of 
the  ancients  are  simply  recorded  but  not  approved. 

5.  How  does  this  affect  the  decalogue  ? 

The  decalogue — the  ten  words — was  originally  written 
on  two  tables  of  stone  : it  is  now  written  in  fleshy  tables  ffl 
the  heart.  Afterwards  it  was  written  in  the  Book  ; 
2 Cor.  111.  3*  there  it  still  stands,  the  same  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  in  the  Old : being  in  neither,  strictly  speaking,  the 
code  of  all  duty.  It  is  for  ever  the  remembrancer  of  manifold 
obligation  ; but  is  insufficient  as  the  basis  of  a Christian 
ethical  system. 


rite  Ethics  of  Redemption. 


305 


6.  What  traces  of  system  are  to  he  found  ? 

According  to  a wide  variety  of  principles  ethics  are  in- 
troduced. Besides  the  indications  already  given,  we  may  note  : 

(1)  The  Saviour’s  discourses  contain  the  inexhaustible 
materials  of  an  orderly  system  of  human  duties. 

(2)  The  apostles  connect  with  the  exhibition  of  every 
doctrine  its  practical  and  moral  aspect  : thus  the  arrangement 
of  their  doctrinal  system  is  the  arrangement  of  their  ethics. 

(3)  Every  epistle  has  its  ethical  section  : mostly  in  strict 
order,  as  may  be  seen  at  the  close  of  that  to  the  Romans  ; but 
sometimes  the  practical  application  is  interwoven  throughout. 

(4)  Each  writer  without  exception  has  his  own  method 
of  summarising  the  essentials  of  ethics  : either  arraying  the 
contrasted  vices  and  virtues,  the  fruits  of  the  flesh  and  the  fruit 
of  the  Spirit ; or  presenting  surveys  of  morals  demanded  in 
every  relation  of  life  ; or  drawing  consummate  pictures  of 
universal  moral  excellence. 


II. 

§t^ic5. 

1.  What  is  signified  by  this  term  ? 

The  systematic  arrangement  of  Christian  morals  as  they 
are  the  application  to  life  of  the  principles  already  laid  down. 

2.  What  law  should  govern  the  arrangement  ? 

That  which  best  shows  the  perfect  symmetry  and  com- 
pleteness of  the  Christian  system.  This  cannot  be  done  by 
enumerating  the  several  virtues  of  religion  as  contrasted  with 
the  opposite  vices  ; nor  by  simply  taking  the  various  relations 
in  which  man  stands  to  other  beings  and  objects.  Christianity 
may  be  regarded  as  an  ethical  discipline  tending  to  form  a per- 
sonal character  in  harmony  with  the  estate  of  grace : this 
should  be  our  first  department.  It  may  be  regarded  also  as 
sanctifying  all  relations  : this  should  be  the  second. 

3.  Can  these  be  kept  entirely  distinct  ? 

They  necessarily  blend  with  each  other  ; the  individual 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


306 


character  is  formed  amidst  Christian  relations  ; and  Christian 
relations  are  moulded  by  personal  character.  But  it  will  be 
found  that  the  distinction  can  be  fairly  maintained. 

I.  §tt6it)i6ual  §l^ic5 : or  ■personal  g^arader. 

1.  Define  strictly  what  is  meant  by  this. 

The  influence  of  the  gospel  in  the  heart  and  life  of  every 
man  who  is  brought  under  its  full  power  as  led  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  of  regeneration  and  renewal. 

2.  How  may  this  be  reduced  to  system  ? 

By  bringing  it  into  harmony  with  the  Spirit^s  adminis- 
tration of  the  grace  of  the  gospel.  We  have  seen  that  there 
is  an  administration  of  preliminary  grace  leading  to  a state 
of  salvation : the  ethics  of  this  do  not  here  enter  ; they  have 
been  already  treated.  The  estate  of  grace  proper,  as  the  new 
life  of  righteousness  and  sanctification,  gives  an  obvious  three- 
fold distribution  which  is  complete.  In  addition  to  these,  the 
doctrine  of  probation  in  this  life  for  the  life  to  come  intro- 
duces another  class  of  ethical  obligations  consummating  all. 

3.  Shall  we  not  be  going  over  again  the  old  ground  ? 

That  is  the  danger  of  our  method.  But  it  must  be 
remembered  that  we  have  to  do  now  only  with  Christian 
duty  as  man^s  cooperation  with  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  that 
only  in  a brief  analytical  exposition. 

§ 1.  of  lJUgtteousnfsa. 

1.  How  may  these  be  generally  viewed  ? 

As  comprising  the  graces  and  duties  of  universal  obedience 
to  the  law  of  God. 

2.  Can  we  distinguish  between  the  graces  and  the  duties  ? 

They  are  really  one;  but,  regarded  as  duties,  they  may  be 
discharged  outwardly,  and  therefore  are  connected  with  re- 
lative ethics.  It  is  the  internal  principle  with  which  we  now 
have  more  particularly  to  do : that  is,  the  spirit  of  obedience 
and  fidelity,  forming  a righteous  character. 


The  Ethics  of  Redemption. 


307 


3.  How  may  the  spirit  of  obedience  be  viewed  ? 

As  active  and  passive  : obedience  and  resignation. 

(1)  To  the  former  belong  the  doing  God’s  will,  which  is 
called  also  doing  righteousness.  It  is  the  habit  of 
surrendering  the  will,  honouring  the  letter  and 

spirit  of  law,  and  by  Divine  grace  obeying  every  known  com- 
mand at  all  costs. 

(2)  To  the  latter  resignation  to  the  Divine  dispensations, 
which  are  His  will  expressed  in  act  ; surrender  to  the  guidance 
of  God ; and  submission  to  His  will  in  special  tribulations. 

4.  What  is  the  special  dignity  of  this  grace  ? 

Beyond  every  other  it  may  be  said  to  sum  up  all  religion. 
It  was  the  ideal  of  the  best  systems  outside  of  revelation,  espe- 
cially in  the  East,  where  however  it  degenerated  into  fatalism. 
It  was  the  leading  feature  of  religion  in  the  Old  Testament ; 
and  the  first  prayer  of  Christianity  is  Thy  will  be 

1 /j  Matt.  VI.  10. 

do7ie  ! done  by  us,  and  on  us,  and  m us. 

5.  What  is  its  specifically  Christian  character  ? 

The  redeeming  work  of  Christ  is  the  ground  of  our 
righteousness  before  God  ; He  Himself  is  the  ex-  i cor.  i.  30. 
ample  and  standard  of  our  internal  righteousness,  iJohnUi.  3 
as  He  is  righteous ; and  all  the  obedience  of  right-  John  xv.  14. 
eousness  is  offered  to  Him  as  well  as  through  Him : ^7* 

Whatsoever  I command  you.  Do  all  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  : where  all  is  emphatic. 

6.  And  how  may  the  spirit  of  fidelity  be  considered  ? 

This  the  Christian  duty  as  faithful  discharge  of  a trust  : 
a principle  of  personal  ethics  that  extends  over  a wide  and  too 
much  neglected  range. 

7.  What  are  its  various  aspects  in  Christianity  ? 

(1)  Religion  is  regarded  as  fidelity  in  the  general  pro- 
bation : Christians  are  ol  believers  or  the  faithful. 

(2)  Christ  is  a Master  who  assigns  to  every  Christian  a 
charge : generally  ov^er  himself,  and  specifically  over  others  in 
what  is  called  in  modern  language  a vocation. 

(3)  The  whole  conduct  of  religion  is  faithfulness 
in  that  which  is  least  and  that  which  is  greatest. 

14 


Lu.  xvi.  la 


3o8 


rhe  Spirits  Administration. 


(4)  Death  is  the  surrender  of  the  trust,  and  judgment  the 
examination  into  our  conduct  in  its  discharge. 


8.  Is  there  a distinction  between  general  and  special 

vocation  ? 

Vocation  or  calling  is  used  only  of  the  gospel  generally  ; 
specific  trusts  are  spoken  of  rather  as  stewardship. 

9.  How  is  the  universal  stewardship  introduced  ? 

We  as  servants  are  also  stewards  ; and  the  stewardship  in- 
cludes our  natural  and  acquired  endowments.  Ye  are  not  your 
Luke  xii.  42,  extends  to  all : Glorify  God  in  your  body^  suggests 
43-  . ’ that  our  physical  health  is  part  of  the  charge.  The 

iCor.  VI.  19,  Qf  unjust  steward  shows  that  wealth  is  ; 

Luke  xvi.  9,  ^nd  the  two  parables,  of  the  ten  pounds  distributed 
Luke  xix.  13.  equally,  and  of  the  seven  talents  distributed  un- 
Matt.xxv.15.  equally  according  to  our  several  ability^  extends  the 
law  to  every  kind  of  special  endowment. 


10.  What  are  the  ethics  of  stewardship  ? 

(1)  Fidelity  in  the  spirit.  Of  the  lowest  of  all  stewards 
the  apostle  speaks  as  shewing  all  good  fidelity  : the  only  grace 
1 itus  ii.  10.  called  good  ; and  only  on  this  occasion,  till  the  good 
Matt.xxv.23.  and  faithful  servant  is  praised  by  the  Supreme  Lord 
and  Judge. 

(2)  In  the  Christian  stewardship  singleness  of  eye : self 

being  always  subordinate  to  the  Master’s  interest  • 

Luke  XVI.  13.  at  ^ j j. 

JSo  servant  can  serve  two  masters, 

(3)  Conscientiousness  : that  is,  anxiety  to  be  faithful  in 
that  which  is  leasts  and  training  the  conscience 


Luke  xvi.  10. 


accordingly. 


11.  What  then  is  this  training  of  the  conscience  ? 

The  habit  of  so  living  as  never  to  be  conscious  of  neglect- 
ing what  is  right.  Herein  do  I also  exercise  myself  to  have  a 
conscience  void  of  offence  : not  training  himself  to 
ctsxxiv.i6.  right,  but  always  to  do  it ; thus  keeping 

the  consciousness  clear. 


§ 2.  2Tf)e  of  generation. 

1.  How  may  these  be  generally  viewed  ? 

As  the  duties  required  for  the  maintenance  of  the  new 


The  Ethics  of  Redemption. 


309 


life  ; as  the  graces  of  that  life  to  be  cultivated  ; and  as  the 
obligations  entailed  by  the  conflict  with  the  residue  of  evil, 
which,  in  the  ethics  of  regeneration,  is  spiritual  death. 


2.  Does  the  maintenance  of  the  new  life  depend  on  any  dis- 
charge of  duty  by  the  regenerate  ? 

There  are  three  ethical  conditions  to  be  noted  : 

(1)  Union  with  Christ  becomes  abiding,  not  without 
our  concurrence : Abide  in  Me.  and  I in  you  / is  a 

. ' John  XV.  4. 

precept.  ^ 

(2)  The  use  of  those  means  of  grace  which  are  the 
nourishment  of  the  new  life  : prayer  generally,  but  specially 
the  hearing  of  the  word,  meditation  on  it,  and  communion 
with  the  Lord  in  the  holy  supper  and  in  the  whole  of  life. 

(3)  Those  who  live  by  the  Spirit,  Who  is  the  oai.  v.  25. 
Spirit  of  life ^ are  exhorted  by  the  Spirit  to  walk. 


Rom.  viii.  2. 


3.  What  are  the  graces  of  the  new  life  ? 

There  is  hardly  a mark  of  religion  which  does  not  in 
a sense  belong  to  these ; but,  specially  viewed,  the  ethics  of 
regeneration  are  simply  and  solely  the  character  of  Christ 
formed  in  the  life  and  the  means  to  that  end. 


4.  How  may  this  be  ethically  treated  ? 

Passively,  as  the  reflecting  His  image ; actively  as  the 
imitation  of  His  example. 

6.  Can  the  former  be  called  a duty? 

Christian  ethics  include  the  preparations  of  the  heart  and 
its  intense  desires  for  the  perfect  likeness  of  Jesus.  We  are 
changed  into  the  same  image ^ even  as  from  the  Lord 
the  Spirit ; but  much  of  our  religion  consists  in  not 
thwarting  or  retarding,  but  promoting,  the  processes  of  this 
transformation. 


0.  Under  what  aspect  is  the  imitation  of  Jesus  presented? 

(1)  The  Lord’s  character  is  our  standard  and  pattern,  to 
which  we  are  to  aspire  as  Divine  excellence  in  human  form. 

(2)  But  the  processes  and  individual  acts  of  our  re- 
ligious life  have  not  their  example  in  Him,  Who 

knew  no  sin.  * *** 


310 


The  Spirit^ s Administration. 


7.  How  are  the  graces  ol  adoption  shewn  to  the  world  ? 

By  the  maintenance  of  the  dignity  of  the  children  of  God 
without  blemish  in  the  midst  of  a crooked  and  perverse  genera- 
Phil.  ii.  15.  ^ton  : the  ethical  principle  which  aims  to  walk  worthy 
Rom.viii.22.  of  our  predestination  to  be  conformed  to  the  image 
of  His  Son. 

8.  What  is  the  relation  of  filial  ethics  to  the  interior  confiict  ? 

A very  important  one  : pervading  the  New  Testament  as 
the  gradual  victory  of  the  regenerate  nature  over  the  remainder 
of  sin.  The  conflict  is  between  the  old  man  and  the  new, 
between  the  flesh  and  the  Spirit. 

9.  Can  the  more  precise  relation  of  these  he  given  ? 

(1)  In  the  former  Christ  is  regarded  as  our  life  ; and  the 
ethics  belong  to  our  fellowship  with  His  passion  and  resurrec- 
_ ...  _ tion.  In  the  latter  the  Spirit  of  Christ  is  regarded 

II.  as  our  life,  and  the  ethics  belong  to  our  being  led  by 

Gal.  V.  18.  Spirit, 

(2)  Both  shew  that  the  sublime  principle  of  Christian 
ethics  is  the  conflict  unto  victory  in  union  with  our  Head. 

(3)  The  ethics  of  both  are  taught  by  St.  Paul  as  the  con- 
trast of  vices  and  virtues  : the  former  as  the  works  of  the  flesh 

which  they  that  are  of  Christ  Jesus  have  crucified: 
a.  V.  19, 22.  latter  the  XWxw^  fruit  of  the  Spirit,  The  two 

catalogues  are  a complete  epitome  of  this  class  of  ethics. 

10.  What  are  the  graces  and  duties  pertaining  to  our  fellow- 

ship with  the  cross  ? 

Absolute  and  habitual  self-denial,  or  renunciation  of  the 
self  of  sin.  (i)  The  crucifixion  of  the  flesh  with  its  passive 
Luke  ix  2 affection  and  active  lusts  ; this  whole  self  of  the  old 
man  it  is  a Christian  duty  to  hate  and  devote  to 
Col.  111.  5.  death.  (2)  The  mortification  of  self  in  individual 
tendencies  to  evil : Mortify^  therefore  (or,  make  dead)  your 
members  which  are  upon  the  earth,  (3)  Those  who 
Col.  111.  9.  ]^2iyQ  onee  for  all  put  off  the  old  man  have  never- 
theless to  fight  against  the  flesh  not  entirely  destroyed. 

11.  What  are  the  subordinate  ethics  that  arise  here  ? 

The  duty  of  religious  self-discipline  : Abstinence,  fasting, 
self-examination,  self-control,  and  the  cultivation  of  spiritual* 


The  Ethics  of  Redemption. 


311 


mindedness,  or  the  constant  suppression  of  the  carnal  mind,  by 
that  special  denial  of  it  to  which  self-government  prompts. 

12.  What  is  the  speciality  of  this  class  of  ethics  ? 

They  are  entirely  Christian  : springing  from  union  with 
Christ  in  His  passion,  and  in  His  resurrection.  All  the  best 
ethics  of  antiquity  extolled  self-control  and  the  ascendency 
of  the  higher  nature  over  the  lower;  but  Christianity  alone 
reveals  the  secret  of  the  old  man  within  us  crucified,  and  the 
new  man  raised  up  to  perfect  life.  This  interior  conflict  is,  in 
its  relation  to  the  cross  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  a new  reve- 
lation in  ethics  : it  occupies  a large  place  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ; and  in  the  heart  of  every  earnest  Christian. 

§ 5.  of  Sanctifitati'on. 

1.  What  is  the  range  of  this  branch  ? 

It  includes  the  maintenance  of  the  spirit  of  consecration 
and  the  renunciation  of  all  that  is  inconsistent  with  it ; the 
cultivation  of  the  spirit  of  devotion  and  its  exercise  in  all  ap- 
propriate acts  ; the  ceaseless  pursuit  of  perfect  union  with  God. 

2.  In  what  sense  is  consecration  an  ethical  duty  ? 

Religion  begins  with  the  presentation  of  self  to 
is  our  obligation  to  reckon  ourselves  with  all  that 
we  have  and  are  as  His  and  not  our  own  ; renewing 
the  dedication  perpetually,  and  with  deep  solemnity 
at  set  times. 

3.  What  follows  from  this? 

The  principle  that  the  ultimate  intention  of  life  must  be 
to  glorify  God:  which  is  a peculiarly  Christian  idea  ^ ^or  vi 
and  the  watchword  of  the  ethics  of  sanctification. 

It  is  negative,  the  ordering  every  act  in  such  a way  ^ 
that  the  honour  of  it  may  be  the  Lord^s  alone ; and  positive, 
so  living  that  the  glory  of  God^s  holiness  may  shine  through  us. 

4.  What  is  the  renunciation  required? 

Supremely,  that  of  sin  and  of  self ; subordinately,  that  of 
Satan  and  the  world. 


God  ; it 

Rom.  vi.  17. 

13  ; xii.  1. 
I Cor.  vi.  ig, 


312 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


(i)  Of  sin  ; because  holiness  unto  the  Lord  is  separation 
from  sin,  viewed  as  impurity  : from  all  defilement  of  flesh  and 
2Cor.vii. I.  spirit^  sensual  and  spiritual.  Of  self:  the  Christian 
2 Cor.  iv.  4.  law  does  not  allow  self  to  be  the  final  aim  in  any  the 
least  action  of  life. 

Eph.  ii.  2.  (2)  As  Satan  is  the  god  of  this  worlds  this  present 

ja^ iv.";.  e'^ii  'world ^ he  is  to  be  renounced,  resisted,  and  defied. 

5.  Show  the  connection  between  sanctification  and  devotion. 

The  word  devotion  means  dedication  to  another,  that  is  to 
God  ; and  as  God  is  the  object  of  worship  always  and  in  all 
things,  devotion  comes  to  signify  the  exercises  of  worship. 

6.  And  what  do  these  include  ? 

As  they  pertain  to  personal  duty,  they  mean  that  the 
heart  is  a temple  in  which  God  is  sanctified  : God,  the  Holy 
I p t i'i  i5  Son.  The  spirit  of  reverence  or  awe, 

I e . 111.  1 . habitual  practice  of  the  presence  of  God,  and  oc- 
casional meditation  on  His  perfections ; habitual  gratitude 
and  occasional  thanksgiving  ; habitual  spirit  of  prayer  and 
occasional  acts  of  worship.  Thus  union  with  God,  the  highest 
privilege  of  the  created  spirit,  is  to  be  reached  ; or  rather  be 
for  ever  confirmed. 

7.  Does  this  exhaust  the  ethical  range  of  sanctification  ? 

That  cannot  be  exhausted.  There  is  no  grace  of  the  soul, 
no  duty  of  life,  which  is  not  to  be  hallowed  on  the  altar.  The 
ijohniv.  16.  ethics  of  sanctification  include  the  whole  sum  of  life 
johniii.2i.  and  act  as  the  soul  ahideth  in  God  and  its  works  are 
wrought  in  God, 

§ 4.  iBtljtfs  of  ti)e  f rotati'onarj  Estate. 

1.  What  is  the  range  of  this  class  ? 

The  duties  and  graces  that  connect  time  with  eternity, 
this  world  with  the  next.  Here  we  have  opportunity  to  intro- 
duce every  ethical  principle  or  precept  that  has  not  been 
already  mentioned  as  belonging  to  the  personal  character. 

2.  How  may  they  be  classified  ? 

We  have  the  duties  arising  (i)  from  our  present  peril ; 
(2)  from  our  grounds  of  confidence  ; (3)  from  a right  estimate 
of  the  relation  between  this  life  and  the  next ; (4)  from  the 


The  Ethics  of  Redemption. 


313 


responsibility  of  judgment  ; (5)  and  from  the  character  re- 
quired for  admission  to  heaven. 

3.  What  are  the  duties  arising  from  our  danger  ? 

Of  two  classes,  springing  from  one  common  principle  of 
spiritual  caution,  (i)  As  to  the  internal  peril,  self-distrust, 
remembering  that  the  heart  is  deceitful,  impels  to  habitual  self- 
examination,  or  the  careful  scrutiny  of  secret  motives  and  secret 
tendencies  to  evil.  As  the  danger  is  from  without.  Matt.  xxvi. 
this  becomes  watchfulness,  which  our  Lord  stamped  ^ 40.^ 
with  deep  emphasis.  Watch  and  pray : this  being  13.' 
both  wakefulness  and  caution.  * 

4.  What  are  the  ethics  of  confidence  ? 

They  are  as  prominent  as  the  ethics  of  fear,  and  preserve 
them  from  excess. 

(1)  At  their  root  is  glorying  or  rejoicing  in  the  Lord:  the 

former  objective,  in  Him;  the  latter  subjective,  in  iCor. i.31. 
ourselves.  4- 

(2)  A true  estimate  of  our  foes  : of  their  strength,  ^.pj^ 

and  of  their  weakness.  This  inspires  that  vigour  and  —18.  * 
courage  which  the  New  Testament  so  much  dwells  i^cory’xvi. 
upon.  ^3- 

(3)  Decision  of  purpose : purpose  of  heart.  This  ^ 

is  the  guard  against  undue  scrupulosity,  and  the  i Con 
morbid  fear  of  self  which  becomes  despondency.  ^7- 

(4)  Hope,  both  as  a virtue  and  as  a duty,  is  found  in  uni- 
versal ethics,  but  in  Christianity  shines  resplendent. 

It  is  subjectively  the  active  expectation  of  future  ^2^25!“* 
good  ; and  Christ  is  our  hope  objectively.  It  is  a J 
duty  to  hope  perfectly  ; it  is  a grace,  the  patience  of  i Thess.i?*3. 
hope  ; and  it  putteth  not  to  shame.  5- 

(5)  Patience,  which  has  two  forms:  endurance  under 
pressure;  persistence  against  difficulty.  The  latter  Rom.v.3.4; 
includes  patience  with  self;  both  are  preservatives 
against  undue  fear. 

6.  How  are  the  ethics  of  the  relation  between  time  and 
eternity  treated  ? 

They  arise  in  great  variety  throughout  the  scriptures,  but 
in  the  New  Testament  especially  ; appearing  as  principles  of 
conduct,  as  positive  duties,  and  as  the  highest  graces. 


3H 


T he  Spirit's  A dministration. 


(1)  The  habitual  weighing  eternity  against  time  is  laid 
down  by  our  Lord  as  a fundamental  regulative  principle,  even 

as  the  motive  of  all  religion.  And  there  is  no 
Luke  ix.  25.  ethical  duty  more  pervasive  than  that  of  re^ardinor 
Phil.  iii.  20.  life  as  a pilgrimage  : on  the  one  hand,  contemning 
or  not  loving  the  world  through  which  we  pass,  and, 
on  the  other,  aiming  at  heaven  as  our  true  home  and  permanent 
commonwealth. 

(2)  The  graces  of  religion  to  be  cultivated  accordingly  are 
deadness  to  the  present  life  and  heavenly-mindedness.  These 

are  the  constant  aspiration  and  the  noblest  finish  of 
Col.  111.  1, 2.  perfect  Christian  character. 

6.  How  are  the  ethics  of  future  judgment  to  be  viewed  ? 

(i)  They  teach  us  to  regard  ourselves  as  forming  a charactei 
which  will  then  be  made  manifest,  (2)  They  impose  the  duty 
2 Cor.  V.  10.  of  thinking,  speaking,  and  acting,  as  those  who  have 
jas.  ii.  12.  to  give  account  of  every  act,  word,  and  thought. 

(3)  They  bring  that  future  reckoning  into  the  habitual  self- 
judgment of  the  present  life. 

7.  How  may  we,  finally,  connect  these  ethics  with  those 

which  have  preceded  ? 

The  sum  of  all  being  the  establishment  of  a perfect 
character,  and  this  life  being  the  sphere  of  probation  for  the 
next,  it  is  plain  that  every  other  aspect  of  ethics  must  be 
viewed  in  the  light  of  eternity. 

II.  '^ielativc  §tf)ics. 

1.  How  is  the  relation  of  personal  to  relative  ethics  viewed 

in  scripture  ? 

Individual  character  and  discharge  of  duty  to  others  are 
always  united  : there  is  a constant  mutual  reaction  ; nor  can 
we  conceive  any  grace  of  interior  religion  which  is  entirely 
unrelated  to  external  obligation. 

2.  What  is  the  special  aspect  of  this  in  Christianity  ? 

It  regards  every  man  as  a body  of  which  Christ  is  the 
1 Cor.  xi.  3.  Head  : and  every  man  also  as  a member  of  the  cor- 
iCoi.  i.  18.  porate  body  of  which  Christ  is  the  Head.  Hence 


The  Ethics  of  Redemption. 


315 


the  word  edification  {olKoSofir})^  or  building  up,  is  a new  term 
which  embraces  all  interior  and  exterior  religion.  iCor.  xiv.4. 

3.  What  distribution  is  suggested  by  the  New  Testament  ? 

There  is  no  ethical  summary  to  guide  us ; but  a careful 
examination  will  show  that  there  are  no  applications  of  duty 
untouched.  Relative  ethics  are  viewed  (i)  as  the  bond  of 
obligation  to  mankind  as  such  ; (2)  as  pervading  family  life  ; 

(3)  as  regulating  common  and  social  organisations  generally  ; 

(4)  more  indirectly  as  affecting  politics ; and  (5)  lastly,  as 
finding  a special  field  in  the  community  of  the  church. 

§ 1.  lEtti'cs  of  our  Common  J^untaniio. 

1.  How  are  these  treated  in  Christian  legislation  ? 

In  a larger  and  nobler  spirit  than  in  any  other  moral 
system,  (i)  In  the  highest  outside  of  Christianity  there  was 
always  either,  as  in  the  case  of  Judaism,  some  taint  of  ex- 
clusiveness in  the  feeling  towards  universal  man,  or,  as  in  the 
case  of  Buddhism,  a deep  inferiority  in  the  inspiring  motive. 
(2)  Christianity  alone  founds  these  catholic  ethics  on  the  unity 
of  the  race  in  the  fall  and  in  redemption. 

2.  What  is  the  preeminence  of  the  Christian  law  ? 

That  it  bases  all  duty  to  man  as  such  on  love  and  justice  : 
the  combination  of  which  is  the  perfection  of  its  teaching. 

3.  How  is  this  seen  ? 

Charity  in  him  who  performs  the  duty  is  the  very  love 
of  God  in  man  for  man ; and  justice,  regarding  the  object  of 
the  duty,  recognises  in  that  object  an  absolute  claim  to  love. 

4.  How  is  love  stamped  as  universal  ? 

By  our  Lord’s  second  commandment  like  unto  the  first ; 
by  His  catholic  interpretation  of  the  neighbour,  His 
own  unlimited  love  being  the  standard  of  ours ; by  i [ohn  hi. 
St.  Peter’s  placing  love  beyond  brotherly  kindness;  aptt. i. 7. 
and  by  St.  Paul’s  unique  description  of  Divine  love, 
the  pattern  of  ours,  as  philanthropy^  and  as  the  fuh 
filment  of  the  law, 

14* 


3i6 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


5.  What  are  the  gradations  of  universal  love  ? 

It  is  benevolence  as  desiring,  or  beneficence  as  practising, 
good  to  all ; it  is  self-sacrifice  as  the  expression  of  unlimited 
love  ; and,  passing  through  long-forbearance  or  magnanimity, 
mercy  or  pity  or  compassion,  which  regard  the  sin  and  misery 
of  men,  descends  to  the  kindness  and  courtesy  that  make  love 
pervade  the  ordinary  intercourse  of  life. 

6.  What  is  universal  justice  ? 

It  is  the  obligation  to  respect  the  rights  of  all  men  and 
Rom.  xiii.  7.  in  the  widest  sense  to  render  to  all  their  dues. 

7.  From  what  is  it  distinguished  as  universal  ? 

(i)  From  the  rectoral  and  distributive  justice  of  God;  (2) 
from  the  rectoral  and  distributive  justice  of  human  law. 

8.  What  does  it  include  as  universal  ? 

The  rendering  by  man  to  man  all  human  rights.  Man 
has  a right  in  himself,  and  justice  forbids  slavery  ; to  his 
possessions,  and  it  forbids  both  in  spirit  and  act  all  robbery  ; 
to  his  character,  and  it  protects  him  against  positive  slander 
and  negative  detraction;  to  his  dignity  as  created  in  the 
r Pet  ii  I God,  and  it  is  justice  that  says  Honour 

9.  What  is  the  sublime  peculiarity  of  Christian  ethics  here  ? 

That  love  and  justice  are  interwoven  in  them.  Love 
regards  all  its  own  offices  as  the  right  of  all  men  ; and  is  the 
liberal  interpreter  of  those  rights. 

2.  iBttus  of  ifamilg  Hi'fr. 

1.  How  are  these  treated  generally  ? 

The  family  is  throughout  scripture  regarded  as  the  foun- 
dation of  all  society  ; its  ethics  are  in  general  the  same  in  all 
dispensations  ; but  Christianity  has,  in  this  as  in  every  depart- 
ment, impressed  its  own  peculiar  character  and  elevated  to 
perfection  what  had  been  imperfect. 

2.  What  is  the  Christian  meaning  of  the  household  ? 

Christianity  is  described  both  as  the  household  or  family 


The  Ethics  of  Redemption, 


317 


and  as  the  temple  of  God  : the  two  ideas  blending.  Hence  Chris- 
tians are  the  oIk€lol  (domestics)  of  God  and  of  the  faith.  Eph.  xL  19. 
But,  just  as  every  Christian  is  a temple,  while  all  are  Gai.  vi.  10. 
the  temple,  so,  while  all  are  the  household,  each  family  is  such  : 
under  a master  of  the  house,  the  members  of  which  are  husband, 
wife,  children,  master  or  mistress,  servants  (otKcVat),  slaves 
(8oi)Aot). 

3.  What  is  its  obligation  ? 

The  same  as  in  every  age.  The  head  of  the  house  is  held 
responsible  for  its  worship  of  God,  its  soundness  in  faith,  and 
its  obedience  to  the  Divine  law  : that  is,  for  the  maintenance 
of  family  religion,  the  master  of  the  house,  the  father  of  the 
family,  is  held  responsible.  The  head  may  be  a 
woman  : the  noblest  document  of  family  religion 
is  written  to  a widow. 

4.  Is  this  the  meaning  of  a church  in  the  house  ? 

Congregational  religion  and  family  religion  are  as  a rule 
quite  distinct.  But  under  certain  circumstances,  as  in  the  case 
of  Philemon,  a family  might  be  assembled  for  eccle- 
siastical ordinances  and  be  the  same  as  a church.  Phiiem.  2. 

5.  In  what  sense  are  they  so  distinct  ? 

(i)  Family  religion  is  without  the  ministry,  the  sacra- 
ments, and  the  public  assemblies,  and  the  obligation  to  spread 
the  gospel.  (2)  But  the  word  of  God  and  prayer  it  must 
have : this  may  be  very  simple,  a lesson  read  and  the  Lord^s 
Prayer ; or  it  may  be  a very  full  service ; but  it  should  never 
be  regarded  as  rendered  needless  or  as  superseded  by  the  public 
worship  of  the  congregation. 

6.  What  are  the  Christian  ethics  of  the  estate  of  marriage  ? 

(1)  Our  Lord  has  set  His  seal  on  monogamy  as  the 

original  institution  of  the  Creator.  Mark  x.  6. 

(2)  St.  Paul  gives  the  highest  possible  dignity  to  this 
estate  by  making  it  an  emblem  and  illustration  of  Eph.  v.  32. 
the  union  betwixt  Christ  and  the  churchy  which  is  xxi.  9. 
the  Lamb's  wife. 

(3)  Accordingly,  the  Christian  man  and  wife  are  joint-heir;^ 

of  the  grace  of  life  ; their  union  is  undefiled  in  itself  ; i Pet.  iii.7 
and  must  be  kept  undefiled.  Heb.  xiiL4. 


318 


The  spirit's  Administration. 


(4)  It  is  indissoluble  in  its  nature ; divorce  is  not  per- 
Markx.g.  mitted  by  the  new  legislation  except  for  conjugal  in- 
i^Cor.va!i5  fidelity  and  desertion  ; and  the  forsaken  wife  should 
II.  ’ remain  unmarried, 

7.  What  are  the  ethics  of  the  parental  and  filial  relations  ? 

These  are  released  from  some  rigorous  enactments  of  the 
Jewish  law,  on  the  one  hand  ; and,  on  the  other,  are,  in 
common  with  all  relations,  but  with  special  emphasis, 
Eph.vi.  I.  elevated  and  hallowed  in  the  Lord, 

(1)  Parents  are  taught  to  regard  their  offspring  as  holy^ 
that  is,  as  by  their  birthright  the  Redeemers  property  in 
I Cor.  vii.  14.  ^ special  sense,  of  which  their  baptism  is  the  sign 
Eph.  vi.  4.  and  seal  ; and  to  educate  them  in  His  nurture  and 
admonition, 

(2)  Children  are  taught  to  obey  their  parents  in  all  things^ 
Col.  iii.  20.  and  in  due  time  to  requite  their  parents.  Here  in  the 
f ^^’m.^V?4.  Lord  derives  special  significance  from  the  Lord^s  own 
Luke  ii.  51.  perfect  example  in  His  twelfth  year. 

§ 3.  Social  anil  ©ontmmial  anU  IPolitical  ^tjics. 

1.  What  is  the  range  of  these  ? 

Strictly  speaking,  Christianity  knows  no  social  relations 
which  are  not  bound  up  with  the  society  of  the  church. 
Fellowship  in  art  and  science  and  numberless  organisations 
of  civilisation  it  indirectly  sanctifies.  But  commerce  it  ac- 
knowledges as  more  directly  a Divine  institution  ; hallowing 
its  principles,  and  taking  them  up  into  the  general  sancti- 
fication of  life.  The  same  may  be  said  of  civil  and  political 
society  in  all  its  departments  and  branches. 

2,  Is  then  the  bearing  of  Christian  ethics  on  all  these  only 

indirect  ? 

It  is  indirect  in  this  sense,  that  the  Christian  law  is  a 
leaven  which  gradually  pervades  all  things,  and  the  process 
of  its  influence  is  silent  and  secret.  But,  in  proportion  as 
Christianity  obtains  sway,  and  where  it  rules,  the  influence 
of  its  morals  becomes  direct  and  manifest.  Meanwhile  to  the 
society  of  this  world  the  highest  teaching  of  Christianity 
remains  and  must  ever  remain  an  ideal. 


The  Ethics  of  Redemption. 


319 


3.  Give  some  illustrations  of  this. 

(1)  The  relation  of  the  church  to  the  world,  its  fellow- 
ships and  its  ways  of  life,  requires  that  the  disciples  of  Jesus 
should  carry  religion  everywhere  : in  the  midst  of  phn.  n 15. 
a crooked  and  perverse  generatiofi  being  blameless  ^ 

and  harmless  and  seen  as  lights.  They  are  not  permitted  to  go 
out  of  the  world, 

(2)  Many  social  and  political  evils  have  been  and  are  en- 
countered by  the  indirect  influence  of  Christian  ethics  : such 
as  slavery,  war,  and  some  unbecoming  public  pastimes. 

(3)  There  is  no  form  of  government  which  its  influence 

has  not  indirectly  penetrated  : that  influence  which  Matt.  xxii. 
the  apostles  describe  and  recommend.  Rom.  xiii. 

4.  What  is  meant  by  Christian  ethics  remaining  as  ideals  ? 

Within  the  Christian  church  all  the  laws  of  Christ  should 
be  supreme:  the  sermon  on  the  mount  is  the  literal  code; 
and  accumulation  of  wealth,  judicial  or  other  swearing,  retali- 
ation in  every  form,  must  be  excluded.  But,  until  society  is 
moulded  by  Christian  law,  it  is  hard  to  apply  this  standard. 
The  Saviour  and  His  apostles  lived  in  a society  which  could 
not  bear  these  precepts ; and  they  conformed  to  the  lower 
standard,  for  instance,  in  submitting  to  the  oath. 

5.  Can  this  be  proved  or  illustrated  by  nearer  examples  ? 

On  the  one  side,  St.  Paul  severely  condemns  having  law- 
suits  one  with  another especially  as  before  unbelievers,  ^ g 
But,  on  the  other  side,  he  himself  appealed  to  Caesar,  Acts  ixv!  li. 
and  he  had  his  Lord’s  sanction  and  authority  for  not 
refusing  to  plead  before  unbelievers. 

6.  How  does  this  apply  to  the  ethics  of  commerce? 

Commerce  is  presupposed  as  one  of  the  foundations  of 
society.  But  it  requires  for  its  success  and  perfection  a special 
application  or  accommodated  interpretation  of  some  of  the  pre- 
cepts of  Christianity. 

7.  For  instance,  the  community  of  goods  ? 

This  was  not  obedience  to  a precept,  but  a special  charisma, 
as  it  were,  of  the  early  church : the  history  of  which  flows  on 
afterwards  in  the  ordinary  channels. 


320 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


8.  What  is  the  strain  of  legislation  on  this  subject  ? 

It  is  generally  defensive,  warning  against  laying  up  trea- 
sure as  such,  and  apart  from  the  necessities  of  capital,  or  the 
Matt.  vii.  19.  due  provisiou  for  the  household.  It  also  makes 
L^ke charity  prominent : To  give  to  him  that  needeth, 
2 John  How  wide  an  application  this  admits  may  be  seen 

in  our  Lord’s  parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward  ; in  the  hospitality 
of  Gains  ; and  in  the  sanctification  of  Christian  wealth  in  all 
ages.  Nowhere,  however,  more  impressively  than  in  St.  Paul's 
I Tim.  vi.  9.  instruction  to  Timothy.  There  we  have  the  warning 

10, 17—19.  side  first,  and  then  the  encouraging  side,  of  the  pos- 
session of  riches  : in  the  one  it  seems  almost  impossible  to 
be  rich  and  a Christian  ; in  the  other  riches  are  retained  and 
made  profitable  in  the  Christian  service;  and  thus  the  two 
passages  are  complementary. 

9.  How  does  it  apply  to  political  society  ? 

(1)  Christianity  in  the  clearest  manner  recognises  that  the 
powers  THAT  BE  are  ordained  of  God^  because  there  is  no 
Rom.  xiii.  i.  power  hut  of  God.  Our  Lord  in  a certain  sense  co- 
Matt.  xxii.  ordinates  Divine  and  human  authority : Render 
iPet.  ii.  17.  therefore  U7ito  Ccesar  the  things  that  are  Ccesar^s; 
a7id  unto  God  the  things  that  are  God^s.  And  His  apostle  also : 
Fear  God ; honour  the  king, 

(2)  Accordingly,  the  duty  to  pray  for  the  government  and 

I Tim.  ii.  i,  its  administration,  to  respect  the  laws,  to  pay  tribute, 
Rom.  xiii.  i livts  of  peaceable  citizenship,  is  every- 

—7-  where  inculcated. 

10.  Is  nothing  further  said  as  to  the  relations  between  the 

church  and  the  state  ? 

Nothing  in  precept  and  little  in  prophecy.  New-Tes- 
tament  legislation  is  for  Christians  as  members  and  subjects  of 
John  xviii.  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  which  is  not  of  this  world. 

36.  And  the  prophetic  intimations,  whether  of  the  Old 
or  of  the  New  Testament,  never  suggest  a blending  of  church 
and  state. 

11.  How  then  do  they  speak  of  it  ? 

(i)  In  the  ancient  scripture,  where  church  and  state  are 
isa.xiix.  23.  one  in  the  Theocracy,  it  is  predicted  that  kings  and 


The  Ethics  of  Redemption. 


321 


nations  will  bring  their  support  and  their  treasures  into  th:^ 
church  of  Christ,  or  that  they  will  oppose  it  and 
be  crushed. 

(2)  In  the  Apocalypse  the  alliance  of  temporal 
and  spiritual  power  is  foreannounced  as  one  form 
of  Antichrist  ; while  in  the  same  prophecy  the  king- 
dom of  the  world  is  become  of  our  Lord  and  His  Christ, 

(3)  But  throughout  the  scripture  it  is  assumed  that  Chris- 
tianity must  gradually  mould  every  social  and  political  con- 
stitution, while  perfectly  distinct  from  any  of  its  forms. 


Isa.  lx.  3 — 
17- 

Hag^.  li.  7. 
Ps.  ii.  9. 
Rev.  xiii.  4. 
Rev.  xi.  15. 


12.  How  may  we  suppose  this  ideal  realised  ? 

By  national  acknowledgment  of  the  Christian  religion  : as 
shown  in  legislative  respect  to  the  laws  of  Christ,  in  the  main- 
tenance of  Christian  principles  in  education,  in  public  rever- 
ence for  the  name  of  God  as  the  sanction  of  all  authority,  and 
in  the  protection  of  the  Faith  in  its  free  and  independent  work. 

13.  How  has  the  history  of  Christendom  illustrated  this  ? 
By  almost  uniform  failure  to  adjust  rightly — whether  in 

theory  or  in  practice — the  relations  between  the  kingdoms 
of  this  world  and  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 


14.  Where  may  we  trace  these  failures  ? 

Historically,  throughout  the  corruptions  of  Christendom. 
In  their  principle,  these  have  exhibited  two  general  forms,  with 
modifications,  of  the  one  error  of  confounding  the  two  co- 
ordinate authorities,  (i)  Either  the  spiritual  side  of  the  power 
bas  been  made  supreme,  as  in  Rome,  and  the  secular  made 
subordinate  to  it ; or  (2)  the  temporal  power  has  patronised 
and  directed  the  spiritual,  as  in  the  East  and  in  Protestant 
Erastianism,  whether  Lutheran  or  Anglican.  The  true  solu 
tion  leads  us  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church. 


322 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


Chapter  VII. 

§^ristian  @^urc^. 

1.  Why  is  this  subject  introduced  at  this  point  ? 

Because  the  church  is  the  sphere  in  which  the  Spirit 
administers  all  the  offices  of  Christ.  On  this  account  it  seems 
better  to  place  it  under  the  administration  of  redemption  than 
to  give  it  a too  prominent  and  independent  place. 

2.  What  is  the  range  of  subjects  here  ? 

First  we  must  study  the  foundation  of  the  church,  with 
its  notes  or  attributes,  as  a body  or  corporate  institution  ; then 
consider  it  as  a temple  or  sphere  of  worship  ; and  finally  mark 
its  relation  to  the  world  as  preparing  it  for  the  final  kingdom. 

I. 

§^nvc^  au6  tfs 

§ 1.  Its  jFounDatton. 

1.  What  evidence  is  furnished  by  the  Gospels  that  our  Lord 

purposed  to  found  a fellowship  or  community  ? 

The  proofs  of  this  take  a threefold  form. 

(i)  He  spoke  as  come  to  set  up  tke  kingdom  of  God^  or 
Matt  vii  33-  kingdom  of  heaven^  or  My  kingdom, 
iii.’a.  * ' (2)  Twice  He  called  it  a church  ; first,  in  its 

^^35"  universality,  I will  build  My  churchy  and  then  in  its 

Matt. pi.  18;  congregational  character,  Tell  it  unto  the  church, 
xvm.  17.  ministry  He  ordained  in- 

stitutions which  imply  and  require  a permanent  organisation. 

2.  When  was  the  church  actually  founded? 

On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  (i)  Then  the  kingdom  came 
Matt.xvi.28.  with  power;  (2)  the  church  began  as  an  ingathering 


The  Christian  Church. 


323 


upon  and  around  the  name  of  Jesus  ; and  (3)  the  ministry  and 
word  and  sacrament  are  first  seen  as  united.  Organisation 
commenced  under  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  flows  on  at  once  in 
the  narrative. 

3.  What  is  the  relation  of  kingdom  and  church  ? 

The  kingdom  refers  rather  to  the  authority  of  Christ  its 
King  ; the  church,  to  the  subjects  of  it  gathered  out  of  the 
word  (e^,  KaXeo))  : as  the  ancient  people  lived  under  a Theocracy, 
so  we  under  a Christocracy  ; and  as  they  were  called  the  con- 
gregation, so  we  are  called  the  church.  The  kingdom  is  one 
and  always  coming:  the  churches  may  be  many  in  the  one 
church,  which  is  come. 


§ 2.  Kotes  or  ^ttributejs. 

1.  What  is  here  meant  by  the  notes  of  the  church  ? 

Certain  attributes  which  define  it  as  the  body  of  which 
Christ  is  the  Head,  and  express  its  relation  to  time  and 
eternity,  to  heaven  and  the  world. 


2.  Does  this  imply  that  the  church  is  Divine  and  human 

like  its  Head  ? 

The  analogy  is  obvious,  as  it  is  His  body ; but,  like  every 
other  analogy,  must  not  be  pressed  too  far.  Discreetly  applied, 
it  will  be  useful  at  every  point  of  the  study  of  the  church, 
which  has  always  two  aspects,  the  heavenly  and  the  earthly. 

3.  Which  is  the  first  note  that  illustrates  this  ? 

The  note  of  unity  : in  regard  to  this,  the  church  is  both 
one  and  manifold:  its  spiritual  and  heavenly  oneness  being 
essentially  bound  up  with  earthly  diversity  of  forms. 


4.  What  is  the  teaching  of  scripture  as  to  the  unity  ? 

(1)  The  body  of  saved  mankind  out  of  every  kindred  and 
tongue  and  people  and  nation  is  in  a broad  sense  the  ^ 
one  church. 

(2)  The  church  of  God  is  one  under  the  several  dispensa- 
tions : the  patriarchal,  Jewish,  Christian. 

(3)  But,  more  appropriately,  the  church  of  Christ  Eph.  iy.  3— 
is  one  in  the  confession  of  the  one  Lord : this  being 


324 


The  S pint's  Administration. 


the  one  baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Trinity  which  makes  one 
Eph.  iv.  3—  b)ody;  and  the  possession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  uniting 
6-  with  the  Head,  which  makes  the  one  Spirit 

5.  And  what  does  it  teach  as  to  diversity  ? 

(1)  It  speaks  of  churches  distinct,  though  united  in  the 
common  confession,  worship,  and  discipline. 

(2)  It  is  silent  as  to  necessary  uniformity,  and  teaches  by 
that  silence. 

(3)  Especially  as  the  breaches  of  spirit,  or  schism,  and 
I Cor.  i.  II.  the  breaches  of  doctrine,  or  heresy,  are  sternly 
Gal.  V.  19.  condemned. 

6.  How  do  unity  and  manifoldness  blend  ? 

In  the  theological  doctrine  of  the  subject : we  may  speak 
of  the  same  church  of  Christ  as  one  and  as  many.  Ethically, 
we  may  believe  in  the  essential  unity,  while  we  see  much 
diversity  ; and  it  is  the  common  duty  to  avoid  all  breaches  of 
unity,  while  the  diversities  which  have  sprung  from  the  past 
must  be  reduced  as  much  as  possible. 

7.  What  is  the  next  note  oi*  attribute  ? 

Sanctity,  which  however  has  in  this  world  imperfection 
for  its  necessary  counterpart. 

8.  Illustrate  this  more  fully. 

As  to  the  mystical  fellowship  of  that  body  which  is  the 
fulness  of  Him  that filleth  all  in  all^  it  is  regarded  prophetically 
as  separated  from  the  world  and  presented  without 
^ spot.  But,  speaking  of  the  Church  of  Christ  on 

earth,  it  is  (i)  actually  holy  in  a relative  sense,  as  a body 
separated  from  the  world  now  and  to  be  separated  for  ever; 
and  (2)  it  has  as  a community  a real  but  partial  internal 
holiness.  The  relative  and  the  real  holiness  will  not  be  one 
and  perfectly  coincide  until  the  time  of  harvest.^  when 
Matt.x111.30.  ^1^^  wheat  and  the  tares  are  severed. 

9.  How  is  this  seen  in  the  note  of  visibility  ? 

(i)  The  church  of  the  New  Testament  is  a visible  organi- 
sation : very  clearly  defined,  both  from  the  world  and  within 
itself.  No  corporate  body  has  ever  surpassed  it  in  this. 


The  Christian  Church. 


325 


(2)  It  is  at  the  same  time  invisible  or  mystical  or  spiritual. 

The  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  His  in  the  great  2 Tim.  ii.  19, 
house.  20- 

(3)  But  we  never  find  the  distinction  clearly  expressed. 
These  two  counterparts  of  visible  and  invisible  are  the  simplest 
of  all  in  the  scripture,  which  however  always  make  the  former 
more  prominent  than  the  latter.  It  is,  strictly  speaking,  rather 
the  kingdom  than  the  church  which  is  invisible. 

10.  And  how  in  that  of  catholicity  ? 

As  a scriptural  note  catholicity  signifies  universality  : as 
differing  from  the  church  of  Judaism,  by  embracing  oai.i.  2. 
all  nations  ; and  as  distinguished  from  the  individual  Rev.i.4. 
churches  of  cities  and  provinces  and  lands. 

11.  How  is  apostolic  a scriptural  note  ? 

The  Pentecostal  church  contmued  stedfastly  in  the  apostles^ 
teaching  and  in  fellowship , and,  as  the  household  of  Acts  u.  42. 
God.,  it  is  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and 
trophets. 

12.  What  is  meant  by  indefectible  and  mutable  ? 

(1)  The  visible  church  shall  abide  unto  theLord^s  coming  ; 

the  gates  of  Hades  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  Matt.xvi.i8. 

(2)  But  individual  churches  may  be  dissolved,  ^ev.ii.5. 
or  corrupt  the  faith  and  be  removed. 

(3)  The  two  counterparts — the  church  permanent  and  the 
churches  transitory — are  therefore  scriptural ; and  of  great  im- 
portance, both  for  the  rebuke  of  bigotry  and  the  relief  of  doubt. 

13.  How  may  the  predicates  militant  and  triumphant  be 

asserted  of  the  same  one  subject  ? 

The  church  militant  is  always  in  conflict  with  the  enemies 
of  her  Head,  both  without  and  within.  As  trium-  ^ ..  ^ 

phant  the  same  church  is  in  Him  victorious;  part  Rev^^Vu,  ^ 
of  it  already  enjoys  the  peace  of  final  victory.  “"^7- 

§ 3.  I^iatoncal. 

1.  What  has  been  the  significance  of  the  notes  in  eccle- 
siastical history  ? 

The  term  was  early  used  to  define  the  church  by  its 


326 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


marks  of  prerogative  and  distinction.  But  it  gradually  came 
to  denote  the  tests  by  which  the  true  church  was  distinguished 
from  the  false. 

2.  How  is  this  illustrated  by  the  four  notes  in  the  early 

creeds  ? 

In  the  Apostles^  the  notes  are  *^holy,  catholic  in  the 
Nicene  “catholic^’ ; in  the  Constantinopolitan,  one,  catholic, 
apostolic.^^  Each  is  an  attribute  of  excellence,  and  a watch- 
word of  discrimination  from  some  heresy  of  the  day. 

3.  Why  do  we  not  limit  ourselves  to  these  ? 

Because  the  relations  of  the  church  are  much  changed  ; 
and  the  additional  characteristics  have  acquired  much  import- 
ance, especially  since  the  reformation.  Around  these  notes 
hang  almost  all  ecclesiastical  controversies. 

4.  What  controversies  are  touched  by  the  note  of  unity  ? 

The  question  between  unity  and  uniformity  ; and  that 
between  unity  and  schism. 

(1)  As  to  the  former,  the  will  of  the  Spirit  has  been 
declared  from  the  beginning : there  has  never  been  one 
outward  form  of  Christianity  in  the  world  since  the  early 
centuries.  It  has  been  found  vain  to  aim  at  a national  uni- 
formity ; or  even  to  maintain  uniformity  in  any  one  place. 
However  desirable  that  might  seem,  the  One  Head  of  the 
church  has  become  the  Head  of  manifold  and  various  churches, 
using  them  all  for  the  edification  of  the  saints,  for  the  main- 
tenance of  the  truth,  and  for  the  diffusion  of  the  gospel. 

(2)  As  to  the  latter  : schism  is  in  the  New  Testament  a 
great  sin  ; and  therefore  it  is  wrong  to  break  the  uniformity  of 
the  church.  From  an  apostate  church  separation  is  a duty; 
but,  whether  this  separation  be  personal  or  of  communities,  it 
must  be  the  last  resort,  and  involves  deep  responsibility. 

6.  How  does  this  apply  to  modern  Christendom  ? 

The  state  of  the  Christian  religion  shows  that  there  is  no 
true  unity  save  that  which  is  spiritual.  Uniformity  is  the 
watchword  of  the  old  communions  : the  Oriental,  however, 
counts  Romanism  a schism  ; and  Romanism  counts  all  bodies 


The  Christian  Church. 


327 


schisms  which  do  not  submit  to  the  chair  of  St.  Peter.  National 
churches  are  generally  based  on  the  principle  of  exclusiveness, 
but  sooner  or  later  they  are  constrained  to  abandon  this. 

6.  How  does  the  note  of  sanctity  involve  controversy  ? 

Mainly  through  the  question  of  discipline  : which  must 
have  as  its  main  principle  the  maintenance  of  the  internal 
purity  of  the  church  ; but  at  the  same  time  must  remember 
that  the  fellowship  as  such  has  an  external  and  relative  holiness. 

7.  What  are  the  specific  bearings  of  this  on  ecclesiastical 

history  ? 

These  must  be  viewed  in  connection  with  the  note  of 
visibility  and  its  counterpart. 

(1)  The  visible  church  is  only  holy  at  best  by  imputation. 
But  this  truth  has  been  perverted  : by  making  external  union 
with  the  community  suffice  ; by  relaxation  of  discipline ; and 
by  neglect  of  fences  around  holy  ordinances. 

(2)  The  invisible  church,  in  Christ,  is  truly  sanctified. 
But  this  truth  has  been  perverted  : by  those  who  have  in  all 
ages  made  membership  dependent  on  experience  and  confes- 
sion of  spiritual  renewal  ; and  have  accordingly  drawn  the  line 
too  sharply  between  the  church  and  the  congregation. 

8.  How  does  this  bear  on  societies  within  the  church  ? 

From  the  beginning  these  have  been  a refuge  from  a church 
too  much  like  the  world,  and  taking  two  lines  : one,  the  retreat 
into  religious  orders,  following  the  counsels  of  perfections^; 
another,  more  especially  since  the  reformation  dawned,  seek- 
ing more  intimate  fellowship  and  mutual  supervision  in  volun- 
tary associations. 

9.  What  has  been  the  general  course  of  these  interior 

societies  ? 

Some  have  declined  and  withered  away  ; some  have  had 
a long  and  healthy  existence,  as  in  Germany  ; and  some, 
finally,  have  become  themselves  separate  churches.  Of  this 
last  the  Methodist  Societies  are  the  most  remarkable  instance 
in  the  history  of  Christendom. 


328 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


10.  Why  the  most  remarkable  ? 

Because  they  have  to  a great  extent  succeeded  in  com- 
bining all  the  essentials  of  a Christian  church  and  of  a society 
within  the  church  ; their  Class-meeting  organisation  being  the 
centre  of  the  latter. 

11.  How  has  the  note  of  catholicity  been  applied  ? 

In  the  early  creeds  the  word  catholic  was  used  to  signify 
the  one  universal  body  as  opposed  to  fragmental y and  isolated 
heresies  and  schisms.  It  then  had  a good  meaning;  as  the 
bodies  representing  errors  which  the  several  articles  of  the 
creeds  condemned  were  really  separations  from  the  true  church. 
But  since  the  falling  asunder  of  Eastern  and  Western  Chris- 
tendom there  has  been  no  catholic  visible  church  strictly  one 
in  external  representation. 

12.  What  is  here  the  relation  of  heresy  to  schism  ? 

The  term  schism  (orx^afjia)  means  division  viewed  as  to  the 
corporate  body,  the  term  heresy  (atpccrts)  makes  prominent  the 
private  judgment  which  leads  to  it.  But  the  history  of  Chris- 
tianity shews  that  the  words  must  be  applied  with  discrimina- 
tion : they  have  been  more  abused  than  almost  any  others. 

13.  What  principles  of  discrimination  are  necessary  ? 

(1)  It  should  be  remembered  that  schism  is  not  charge- 
able on  the  mere  fact  of  separation  : the  body  departed  from 
may  so  act  as  to  render  the  separation  necessary  ; and  separated 
bodies,  called  sects,  have  had  the  seal  of  Divine  approval  in 
their  subsequent  history. 

(2)  The  term  heresy  is  indefinite  ; Christianity  was  called 
a Heresy ; and  the  only  use  of  the  word  now  valid  is  to  note 

those  communions  which  have  departed  from  the 
Actsxxiv.14.  of  New-Testament  doctrine. 

(3)  Every  church  is  responsible  for  its  maintenance  of  the 
catholic  doctrine  against  heresy,  and  of  the  catholic  spirit 
against  schism. 

14.  What  have  been  the  bearings  of  the  note  of  apostolicity  ? 
At  first  it  was  the  mark  of  churches  founded  by  apostles 


The  Christian  Church. 


329 


or  their  authority  ; then  it  became  the  mark  of  fidelity  to 
apostolic  teaching.  The  latter  use  it  retains. 

15.  What  errors  have  crept  in  with  regard  to  this? 

Mainly,  that  which  is  based  on  an  erroneous  view  of 
apostolical  succession:  the  theory,  namely,  (1)  that  the 
authority  of  the  apostles  has  descended  in  lineal  succession 
through  the  bishops  ; (2)  that  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter  has  de- 
scended through  the  line  of  the  bishops  of  Rome;  and  (3)  that 
the  true  church  can  be  found  only  where  this  descent  can  be 
traced,  at  least  in  its  broad  outlines. 

16.  What  is  the  effect  of  this  ? 

Unlimited  confusion  and  uncertainty.  As  applied  by 
Rome,  it  excludes  from  Christendom  all  the  Eastern  churches 
before  the  Reformation,  and  the  entire  Protestant  world  since ; 
as  applied  by  other  episcopal  communities,  it  cuts  off  all  non- 
episcopal  communions,  and  makes  their  own  position  very 
doubtful,  even  on  their  own  principles. 

17.  How  does  the  article  of  “ the  communion  of  saints  ” bear 

on  the  whole  subject  of  the  notes  ? 

(1)  As  an  article  of  faith,  it  asserts  that  all  true  Christians 
believe  in  their  common  fellowship  with  the  Holy  Trinity  in 
Christ,  with  the  whole  community  of  true  believers  in  the  past 
and  present,  on  earth  and  in  heaven  ; and  in  the  reality  of  a 
mystical  oneness  in  spite  of  many  and  wide  divisions. 

(2)  As  a confession  of  that  faith  it  involves  the  respon- 
sibility of  using  all  means  to  lessen  divisions  and  promote 
brotherly  love  ; by  embracing  every  opportunity  of  cooperation 
for  the  spread  of  the  Redeemer’s  kingdom,  which  is  the  one 
end  for  which  the  several  churches  exist. 

II. 

tts  of  ^ors^ip. 

1.  What  does  this  subject  embrace  ? 

The  worship  of  the  congregation ; the  public  means  and 
ordinances  of  grace  ; and  the  Christian  ministry. 


330 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


2.  How  are  these  related  in  our  analysis? 

The  first  includes  the  whole  service  of  public  devotion  as 
going  up  to  God  ; the  second  regards  the  fellowship  of  Christas 
people  as  receiving  blessings  from  God  through  appointed  chan- 
nels ; and  the  third  the  official  representatives  of  the  Christian 
church  in  both  these  relations. 

I.  of  t^e  §onqxcqation. 

1.  What  are  the  special  characteristics  of  this  worship? 

It  is  the  highest  form  of  that  public  homage  which  in 
every  age  God  has  received  from  His  people  as  such. 

2.  How  is  Christian  worship  distinguished  as  the  highest? 

(i)  As  presented  to  the  Triune  God  in  His  final  revela- 
tion of  Himself ; (2)  through  the  Mediator  now  fully  made 
known  ; (3)  as  no  longer  ritualistic  but  in  harmony  with 
the  perfected  spirituality  of  worship  itself ; and  (4)  in  accord- 
ance with  the  full  manifestation  of  the  nature  of  the  church  it 
is  now,  as  it  never  was  before,  congregational. 

3.  What  are  the  essential  and  common  characteristics  01 

all  public  worship  ? 

(1)  Adoration  of  God  Himself,  praise  of  His  perfections 
and  works,  thanksgiving  for  His  mercies  : as  the  tributes  due 
to  the  Supreme  from  His  people. 

(2)  Confession,  prayer,  intercession  : as  demanded  by  their 
own  sinful  character,  their  needs,  and  their  charity. 

(3)  The  assembling  together  to  offer  both. 

4.  Has  this  last  been  universal  ? 

Yes:  but  with  differences  in  the  several  dispensations  as 
to  the  set  times  and  the  places  and  the  ceremonial  of  worship. 

5.  What  is  the  Christian  law  as  to  place  ? 

Whereas  in  the  old  economy  there  was  one  place  of 
Deut  xii.  i.  sacrifice  where  the  congrep^ation  as  such  might 


The  Christian  Church. 


331 


gather,  the  ordinance  now  is  Where  two  or  three  are  gathered 
together  in  my  name^  there  am  I in  the  midst  of  Matt.  xviiL 
them.  20. 

6.  And  as  to  time  ? 

(1)  The  sabbath  is  still  hallowed  as  the  day  of  rest  and 

worship : as  the  day  set  apart  by  God  and  made  for  ..  ^ 

man.  ^ 

(2)  But  this  is  now,  like  the  supper  and  the  church  itself, 
appropriated  for  Christ : the  Lord's  day ; observed 

as  such  from  the  first  assembly  on  the  day  of  His 
resurrection  onwards. 

(3)  In  former  ages  other  times  and  seasons  were  appointed  ; 
but  these  are  now  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  people  themselves. 

7.  And  as  to  ceremonial  ? 

Little  is  said  of  this  in  the  New  Testament  ; Let  all  things 
be  done  decently  and  in  order  is  the  rule.  The  ritual 
of  the  temple  found  no  place  ; and  the  frame  of  ^ 
worship  was  rather  conformed  to  that  of  the  synagogue  : prayers, 
liturgical  or  other  ; reading  of  scripture;  and  exhortation. 

§ 2.  ^.tstorical. 

1.  What  were  the  earliest  corruptions  of  worship  ? 

It  gradually  became  conformed  to  that  ritual  sacrificial 
service  which,  as  such,  had  been  abolished  by  the  gospel  ; and 
corrupted  the  simplicity  of  devotion  by  undue  use  of  symbols. 

2.  Are  then  ritualism  and  sacrificial  worship  combined  ? 

Almost  all  the  ancient  rites  were  directly  or  indirectly 
connected  with  the  service  of  the  visible  altar  : the  Christian 
altar  is  invisible.  We  have  an  altar  : but  Jesus  is 
i<t<s  only  priest.  Ritualism  is  essential  to  worship  ; ^ -xm-io. 

but  litualism  may  be  said  to  signify  that  kind  of  worship  which 
ill  its  ministers  and  their  vestments,  its  manifold  symbols  and 
their  teaching,  is  based  on  the  continual  renewal  of  a Heb.  ix.  28; 
sacrifice  which  was  once  offered  : one  sacrifice  for  sins  i*- 

for  ever. 

3.  What  was  the  effect  of  this  principle  ? 

The  Christian  worship  became  a priestly  ministration  at 
an  altar;  the  spiritual  priesthood  of  all  believers  was  lost  sight 
ot ; private,  family,  and  social  devotion  were  thrown  into 
15 


332 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


disparagement  ^ free  prayer  was  too  much  lost  in  the  liturgical 
form  ; and  the  preaching  of  the  word  was  made  too  subordinate. 

4.  How  did  the  undue  use  of  symbols  appear  ? 

In  every  part  of  worship  : in  the  place,  in  the  ministerial 
garments,  in  the  festivals  and  feasts,  in  the  canonical  hours  of 
devotion,  and  in  numberless  ceremonials  which  corrupted  or 
obscured  the  simplicity  of  the  sacraments. 

5.  But  have  corruptions  been  all  on  one  side  ? 

No  ; in  every  age,  but  in  later  times  especially,  simplicity 
has  been  carried  too  far.  Distinction  of  times  has  been  re- 
jected ; and  the  Christian  Lord^s  day  has  been  classed  with  the 
Jewish  sabbath,  of  which  St.  Paul  says  that  the  substaitce  is  of 
Chi'ist,  The  obligation  of  public  assembling  has 
Col.  11. 17.  been  lightly  regarded  ; the  pure  element  of  worship 
sometimes  sacrificed  to  preaching ; and  irreverence  too  often  is 
the  opposite  extreme  of  superstitious  ceremonialism., 


II.  of 

1.  What  is  the  widest  import  of  this  term  ? 

It  signifies,  generally,  all  the  ordinances  appointed  by 
God  through  which  we  receive  His  covenant  blessings  : hence 
the  word,  prayer,  faith,  worship  are  means  of  grace. 

2.  Is  grace  limited  to  these  ? 

There  is  a universal  grace  which  comes  through  the 
Mediator,  the  Supreme  Medium  of  grace,  to  the  world  through 
the  Spirit.  But  the  term  here  specially  refers  to  the  appointed 
channels  provided  in  the  church  : the  word,  united  prayer,  and 
sacraments,  severally  and  unitedly. 

3.  In  what  sense  is  the  word  one  of  the  means? 

(i)  The  written  word  is  publicly  and  privately,  in  all  dis- 
pensations, the  medium  of  communion  with  God.  (2)  But,  in 
the  Christian  church,  that  word  is  made  the  instrument  of 
conviction,  conversion  and  sanctification : in  the  institute  of 


Ths  Christian  Church. 


333 


teaching  and  preaching.  (3)  No  other  means  of  any  kind  is  a 
channel  of  grace  without  the  word. 

4.  In  what  sense  is  prayer  such  a channel  ? 

(i)  This  also  is  the  universal  way  of  access  to  God  and 
blessing  from  Him : without  it  also  no  other  means  are  effec- 
tual. {2)  But  in  the  Christian  church  united  prayer  is  a special 
institution  with  which  God  connects  His  covenant  blessing. 

5.  And  in  what  sense  the  sacraments  ? 

They  also  are  institutions — like  preaching  and  common 
prayer — with  which  the  grace  of  the  gospel  is  connected. 

6.  What  is  the  relation  of  the  word  and  prayer  and  sacraments 

It  may  be  said  that  (i)  the  word  teaches  and  promises  the 
grace ; (2)  prayer  seeks  and  finds  it  by  faith  ; and  (3)  the  Sacra- 
ments confirm  and  seal  it  through  the  Spirit. 


III.  ^acvaxnents. 

§ 1.  Sm'ptural. 

1.  What  is  the  relation  of  sacraments  to  the  Christian 

covenant  ? 

They  were  ordained  by  Christ  Himself  to  be  to  His 
people  what  the  emblems  of  the  law  were  to  the  Jews,  tokens 
or  pledges  of  His  grace. 

2.  Did  they  supersede  all  the  ancient  ceremonial  symbols  ? 

Yes  ; but  especially  circumcision,  which  was  the  token  of 
admission  to  the  covenant ; and  the  passover,  which  was  the 
annual  commemoration  of  its  privileges : baptism  takes  the 
place  of  the  former,  and  the  Lord^s  supper  that  of  the  latter. 

3.  Then  they  may  be  called  institutions  of  Christianity  ? 

The  only  permanent,  unchangeable  and  universal  institu- 
tions : their  simple  rites  being  established  for  ever  ; their  out- 
ward observance  being  the  badges  of  Christian  profession  ; and 


334 


The  SpiriVs  Administration. 


their  inward  blessing  to  faith  being  the  assurance  of  the  grace 
they  signify. 

4.  What  terms  signify  this  assurance  ? 

They  are  signs  by  which  God  declares  His  grace;  and 
seals  by  which  He  pledges  it  to  our  faith. 

5.  Are  they  then  channels  of  grace  ? 

No  ordinance,  no  rite,  no  institution  of  God  is  without 
its  appropriate  grace.  Every  Divine  word  and  every  believing 
prayer  is  a channel  of  grace ; and  the  sacraments  also  through 
the  word  of  God  and  the  prayer  of  faith  are  means  of  grace. 

6.  But  are  they  not  by  their  very  nature  only  remembrancers 

and  pledges? 

They  are  seals  of  a covenant : and  the  seal  is  (i)  the 
Divine  signature  that  God  will  fulfil  His  promise  according  to 
the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  covenant : (2)  the  internal 
assurance  impressed  on  the  soul  that  He  does  fulfil  it. 

7.  What  is  the  relation  of  the  two  sacraments  of  the 

covenant  of  grace  in  Christ? 

The  last  words,  in  Christ,  answer.  They  seal  the  believer’s 
union  with  Christ  and  participation  in  Him  of  all  the  privileges 
of  the  covenant : one  sacrament  being  that  of  the  first  union 
with  Him,  the  other  that  of  abiding  communion  with  Him. 

§ 2. 

1.  What  has  been  the  current  of  thought  on  the  subject? 

It  has  taken  two  lines  ; one  overvaluing  the  sacraments, 
and  the  other  undervaluing  them,  as  means  of  grace. 

2.  What  has  been  the  history  of  the  former  error  ? 

(1)  From  the  earliest  times  there  was  a tendency  to 
regard  the  church  as  the  depository  of  mysteries  : baptism 
being  the  initiation,  the  supper  the  inmost  secret,  and  all  the 
doctrines  and  ceremonies  of  religion  between.  The  Greek 
fuivo-T'^ptov  and  the  Latin  sacramentum  both  at  first  signified 
every  revealed  mystery ; but  were  gradually  limited  to  these. 

(2)  By  degrees  this  idea  of  a sacramental  Christianity 


The  Christian  Church, 


335 


took  the  form  of  a multiplication  of  sacraments,  so  as  to  meet 
all  the  requirements  of  human  nature  : baptism  for  the  conse- 
cration of  birth  ; confirmation,  of  adult  age;  the  eucharist,  of 
spiritual  nourishment  ; penance,  for  pardon  of  actual  sin  ; 
matrimony  for  the  sanctification  of  family  life  ; orders,  for  the 
consecration  of  the  church  and  its  authority  ; extreme  unction 
for  the  departure  from  time  and  the  final  sealing  of  probation. 

3.  How  did  the  reformation  aifect  the  sacramental  idea  ? 

(1)  It  was  gradually  brought  back  to  New-Testament 
principles  : gradually,  for  at  the  outset  a compromise  sprang 
up  which  allowed  penance  and  orders  to  be  sacramentals 
though  not  sacraments.  This  distinction  is  still  resorted  to. 

(2)  The  council  of  Trent  decreed  that  the  seven  sacra- 
ments were  ordained  by  Christ  as  the  sole  channels  of  grace, 
though  allowing  the  supremacy  of  the  Eucharist. 

(3)  The  Protestant  kandards  all  finally  asserted  the 
validity  of  only  two  sacraments : declaring  that  no  one  of 
the  added  five  was  “ ordained  by  Christ  Himself  as  having 
“ a visible  sign  or  ceremony  ordained  of  God.” 

4.  Did  it  abolish  the  connection  of  grace  with  their 

administration  ? 

(1)  It  opposed  the  theory  known  by  the  words  opus 
operatum,”  which,  as  laid  down  by  the  schoolmen,  signified 
that  grace  was  inherent  in  the  sacraments  and  always  com- 
municated as  a work  wrought  ” through  them  : first,  with- 
out necessary  cooperation  of  faith  ; secondly,  the  “obex”  or 
impediment  of  mortal  sin  not  hindering  ; and,  thirdly,  the 
“intention  ” of  the  administrator  being  that  of  the  church. 

(2)  But  the  connection  of  grace  with  the  two  sacramental 
emblems  was  maintained  by  all  the  formularies  and  doctors 
of  the  reformation  ; though  that  connection  was  differently 
viewed,  whether  as  to  the  nature  or  as  to  the  time  of  the  grace. 

6.  How  may  the  difference  be  stated  ? 

(i)  All  the  Lutheran  standards  held  that  the  two  sacraments 
are  the  two  chief  channels  of  grace  for  the  beginning  and  the 


336 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


continuance  of  the  new  life ; their  benefit,  however,  depend- 
ing on  faith. 

6.  How  did  the  Arminians  treat  the  sacraments  ? 

As  having  sprung  from  the  Reformed  branch,  they  also 
regarded  them  as  means  of  a grace  not  by  any  means  confined 
to  the  time  of  their  use.  The  Arminian  doctrine  laid  more 
emphasis  than  had  been  laid  before  on  their  relation  to  the 
covenant,  and  to  the  mutual  obligation  implied  in  it. 

7.  How  has  the  second  tendency  been  exhibited  ? 

(1)  Some  of  the  mystics  rose  above  all  means;  and,  hold- 
ing  lightly  the  institution  of  a visible  church,  of  course  disre- 
garded or  unduly  spiritualised  the  sacraments. 

(2)  An  extreme  form  of  this  in  modern  times  is  seen  in 
the  Friends,  who  think  that  the  sacraments  were  designed  to  be 
transitional : rites  being  inconsistent  with  a spiritual  religion. 

(3)  ButZwingli  earlier  taught  that  they  were  simply  signs, 
connected  with  grace  only  through  their  operation  on  the 
devout  mind.  And  this  view  is  still  entertained  by  many  who 
regard  the  signs  as,  so  to  speak,  pictorial  representations. 

8.  What  is  the  bearing  of  the  sacramental  terminology  on 

the  question  ? 

(i)  The  four  terms,  mystery  and  sacrament,  sign  and  seal, 
are  not  expressly  applied  to  these  sacred  ordinances.  But  they 
have  been  bound  up  with  the  teaching  of  the  church  of  Christ 
from  the  beginning.  (2)  Mystery  imports  that  the  ‘‘  inward 
and  spiritual  grace''  hidden  behind  ‘‘the  outward  and  visible 
sign  is  to  be  traced  in  its  effects,  not  investigated  in  its 
nature.  Sacrament  keeps  its  original  meaning  of  a binding 
pledge  which  unites  the  two  parties  in  the  covenant.  (3) 
The  sign  and  seal  must  not  be  sundered : the  Divine  sign  of 
the  grace  is  a Divine  seal  also.  The  words  are  derived 
Rom.  IV.  II.  teaching  of  St.  Paul  concerning  the  faith  of 

Abraham,  who  received  the  sign  (crrjjjLeLov)  of  circumcision^  as  a 
seal  q/'(cr(/>paytSa),  or  assurance  of  his  possessing,  the  righteousness 
of  the  faith  which  he  had  while  he  was  in  uncircumcision. 


The  Christian  Church. 


337 


IV.  'baptism. 

§ 1.  In  KebJ  ^Tegtament. 

1.  What  is  Christian  baptism  ? 

The  rite  ordained  by  our  Lord  to  be  the  sign  of  admission 
into  the  church  ; and  the  seal  of  union  with  Himself  and  par- 
ticipation in  the  blessings  of  the  Christian  covenant. 

2.  What  is  its  history  in  the  New  Testament  ? 

We  have  one  central  record  of  institution  : preceded  by 
certain  preparations  in  the  Gospels,  and  followed  in  the  later 
books  by  many  illustrative  references  to  its  meaning. 

3.  Is  it  then  peculiar  to  the  Christian  revelation  ? 

By  no  means.  It  has  an  Old-Testament  history  also. 
Washing  with  water  was  part  of  the  ritual  of  the  law  ; there 
are  many  figurative  allusions  in  the  Prophets  to  its  future  sig- 
nificance ; and  it  is  probable  that  between  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian times  proselytes  of  both  sexes  were  baptised. 

4.  What  was  the  baptism  of  John  the  Baptist  ? 

It  was  a distinct  institution  : by  which  those  who  received 
it  were  pledged  to  repent  and  prepare  for  the  coming  Acuxix.3. 
Christ.  It  was  John^s  haptis7n  and  it  was  unto  re-  Matt.  m.  n. 
peniance. 

5.  Then  it  was  not  the  first  form  of  Christian  baptism  ? 

Strictly  it  was  not;  the  hour  for  this  rite,  like  that  of  the 
Lord^s  supper,  had  not  come  : (i)  because  the  Lord  was  instead 
of  all  ordinances  ; and  (2)  because  the  Christian  church,  for 
which  these  rites  were  intended,  had  not  yet  been  founded. 

6.  But  His  disciples  baptised  by  the  Lord’s  per-  t ^ « 

mission?  jomv. 

Only  on  the  principle  that  Jesus  must  increase  by 
humbling  Himself  to  all  the  preparatory  ministra-  johniii.  30. 
tions  for  His  coming  and  work.  Of  His  own  disciples  Johnxv.  3. 
He  said  : Now  ye  are  cleaii  through  the  word  which  I have 
spoken  unto  you. 


338 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


7.  What  significance  is  in  the  words  of  the  institution  ? 

It  was  a command  to  baptise  into  the  Name  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; and  to  disciple  all 
Matt,  xxviii.  nations  in  the  Name  of  Jesus,  the  only  meaning  of 
19, 20.  discipleship. 

8.  Does  the  baptism  here  precede  the  discipling  ? 

The  order  is  left  indefinite.  But  it  is  to  be  inferred  : 

(1)  That,  whatever  may  be  said  to  the  contrary,  children 
would  from  the  outset  have  their  part ; and  they  were  baptised 
in  order  to  their  future  instruction. 

(2)  That  in  the  case  of  adults  the  discipleship  must  be 
"egarded  as  preceding  baptism,  or  accompanying  it. 

(3)  That  the  teaching  to  observe  all  things  whatso^ 

Matt,  xxviii.  ^ Commanded  you  would  follow  as  the  end 

20.  of  all. 

9.  What  light  does  the  subsequent  historical  observance 

throw  on  it  ? 

We  see  that  the  Lord’s  ordinance  was  always  honoured, 
even  when  the  blessings  it  sealed  had  been  already  given  ; that 
households  were  baptised  ; and  that  it  was  the  universally 
known  token  of  Christian  profession. 

10.  Does  the  baptism  of  households  necessarily  imply  the 

baptism  of  children  ? 

That  is  the  natural  inference,  •.nd  it  is  supported  by  the 
following  important  considerations  : 

(1)  Christianity  extended  the  covenant  from  one  holy 
people  to  all  nations. 

(2)  Circumcision  and  the  passover  both  marked  emphati- 
cally the  family  character  of  the  old  covenant. 

(3)  On  the  great  day  of  transition  we  hear  that  the  pro- 
Actsii.  39.  mise  was  to  you  and  to  your  children, 

(4)  The  children  of  Christian  parents,  as  such,  are  said  to 
be  holy  y that  is,  as  specially  consecrated  to  the  Trinity,  and 

therefore  to  be  trained  in  the  discipline  of  the  Lord. 
I or.vu.14.  necessarily  the  seal  of  this  ; and  we 

never  read  that  they  were  trained  for  subsequent  baptism. 


The  Christian  Chtirch. 


339 


11.  How  does  St.  Paul  deal  with  the  subject  ? 

He  was  himself  baptised,  notwithstanding  his  vision  of 
Jesus  ; and  notwithstanding  his  special  call  as  an  apostle  he 
sometimes  administered  the  rite  ; and  though  sent 
not  to  baptise^  he  was  sent  to  teach  more  fully  than 
any  other  the  meaning  of  baptism. 

12.  How  may  we  show  that  teaching  ? 

Under  two  heads : first,  in  the  case  of  believers  as  parties  to 
the  covenant,  baptism  is  referred  to  as  the  remembrancer  of  obli- 
gations ; secondly,  as  to  the  God  of  the  covenant,  baptism  is 
always  strictly  associated  with  its  blessings  as  conveyed  with  it. 

13.  Give  instances  of  the  former. 

Answering  the  question.  Shall  we  contmue  m that 
grace  may  abound?  the  apostle  asks  again.  Are  ye  ^ ^ 

ignorant  that  all  we  who  were  baptised  into  Christ  Gai.  in.  27. 
Jesus  were  baptised  into  His  death  f The  same  kind  of  appeal 
he  makes  to  the  Galatians,  and  it  is  silently  heard  everywhere. 

14.  And  of  the  latter. 

It  is  regarded  (i)  as  having  been  the  seal  of  union  with 
Christ  generally,  in  His  death  and  life:  Having  been 
buried  with  Him  in  baptism^  wherein  ye  were  also 
raised  with  Him, 

(2)  As  the  seal  of  the  several  blessings  of  the  Christian 
estate.  Of  pardon  : Be  baptised^  and  wash  away  thy 
sins^  answering  to  St.  Peter’s  words.  Unto  the  re~  Acjsxxii.16; 
mission  of  your  sins.  Of  the  new  life : Ye  are  all  Oai.  in.  26, 
sons  of  God^  through  faith.,  in  Christ  Jesus.  For  as  Epf.v.26. 
many  of  you  as  were  baptised  into  Christ  did  put  on 
Christ.  Of  sanctification  : That  He  might  sanctify  it.,  having 
cleansed  it  by  the  laver  of  water  with  the  word.  Baptism  is 
connected  with  all  alike. 

15.  Is  it  then  regarded  as  the  channel  of  their  hestowment? 
No,  but  as  the  outward  and  visible  pledge  that  they  have 

been,  are  now,  or  will  be  bestowed.  There  is  but  one  Channel 
of  grace  to  man  ; one  Agent,  the  Spirit  of  grace  ; and,  in  all 
the  passages  which  introduce  baptism,  faith  and  the  word  are 
avowedly  or  by  implication  included. 

15* 


340 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


16»  Does  not  St.  Peter  speak  expressly  of  the  salvation 
of  haptism  ? 

He  certainly  says  that  baptism  is  an  antitype^  or  like 
figure^  to  the  water  of  the  flood  through  which  the  few  were 
I Peter  iii.  saved.  But  they  were  saved  in  the  ark  ; and  the 
20,  21.  apostle  adds  his  limitation  : Even  baptism^  not  the 
putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  fleshy  but  the  inqimy  of  a good 
conscience  toward  God. 

17.  But  has  not  our  Lord  given  His  own  conclusive  testimony  ? 
Except  a man  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit.,  he  cannot 

enter  mto  the  kingdom  of  God.  This  undoubtedly  unites  the 
seal  and  the  grace ; but  does  not  define  the  bond 
johSiii.8.’  their  union.  By  adding,  So  is  everyone  that  is 
born  of  the  Spirit.,  the  Saviour  shows  that  the  bond 
is  not  essential  and  absolute. 

18.  Does  He  elsewhere  allude  to  this  connection  ? 

At  the  end  of  His  ministry  : He  that  believeth  a7id  is 
baptised  shall  be  saved ; but  He  that  disbelieveth 

Markxvi.16.  7 77  7 7 7 

shall  be  condemned. 

19.  What  do  we  learn  from  this  ? 

(1)  We  mark  the  same  absence  of  baptism  in  the  second 
clause  : the  condemnation  is  not  absolutely  connected  with 
the  lack  of  baptism. 

(2)  We  see  that,  as  the  new  birth  is  spoken  of  in  the 
beginning,  so  salvation  generally  is  united  with  baptism  at 
the  close,  of  our  Lord’s  teaching  on  the  subject. 


§ 2.  J^istorual. 

1.  What  traces  of  patristic  error  appear  in  early  times? 

(1)  Pardon  and  the  new  life  were  too  closely  connected 
with  the  rite  : which  led  to  its  frequent  postponement,  lest 
such  great  privileges  should  be  irreparably  lost. 

(2)  The  rite  itself  kept  pace  in  its  abundant  ceremonials 
with  many  superstitious  additions  to  the  doctrine. 

2.  What  was  its  connection  with  the  catechumenate? 

An  order  of  catechists  was  set  apart  to  instruct  candidates 


The  Christian  Church, 


341 


for  baptism,  or  catechumens  : these  passing  through  successive 
and  strict  stages  into  the  privilege  of  full  membership. 

3.  How  did  this  comport  with  infant  baptism? 

For  a long  time  a large  number  of  the  baptised  were 
adults  ; and  the  catechumenate  was  specially  for  them.  But 
we  have  the  testimony  of  antiquity  that  infants  were  baptised 
from  the  beginning  as  “ apostolical  usage.’^ 

4.  Can  we  trace  confirmation  as  linked  with  it  ? 

Very  early  the  simplicity  of  our  Lord’s  institution  was 
corrupted  by  the  anointing  and  imposition  of  hands  to  signify 
the  gift  of  the  Spirit  as  supplementing  the  removal  of  guilt. 
But  this  was  not  separated  from  baptism  by  the  Orientals,  nor 
by  the  Westerns  until  the  second  sacrament  was  established. 

6.  Did  antiquity  agree  as  to  the  manner  of  baptising  ? 

Immersion  was  the  prevalent  early  practice,  and  is  still  so 
in  the  East : a triple  immersion.  But  pouring  or  sprinkling 
gradually  superseded  it  in  the  West. 

6.  What  are  the  several  differences  as  to  the  virtue  of 

this  sacrament? 

(1)  The  mediaeval  church,  and  the  council  of  Trent, 
determined  that  in  baptism  the  sin  of  the  nature  is  taken 
away  : concupiscence,  however,  or  the  fuel  of  sin  remaining  ; 
and  to  be  conquered  by  the  Holy  Spirit  given  in  the  second 
sacrament  of  confirmation. 

(2)  The  formularies  of  the  reformation  rejected  this  doc- 
trine of  a necessary  supplement  of  confirmation  ; and  they 
denied  that  the  concupiscence  remaining  after  baptism  is  with 
out  sin.  But  they  differed  on  other  important  points. 

7.  What  were  their  leading  differences? 

The  Lutherans  held  that  baptism  is  the  sole  appointed 
channel  of  regeneratinggrace.  The  Calvinistic  Reformed  held 
that,  in  the  case  of  the  elect,  it  conveys  as  well  as  pledges  that 
grace ; but  conveys  it  only  as  an  external  attestation  of  the 
secret  work  of  the  Spirit,  at  the  time  or  afterwards  wrought 
according  to  the  conditions  of  the  covenant,  and  to  its  true  heirs. 


342 


The  SpiriVs  Administration. 


8.  What  is  the  Anglican  doctrine  of  baptism  ? 

In  Art.  xxvii.  it  is  declared  to  be  sign  of  regeneration, 
or  new  birth,  whereby,  as  by  an  instrument,  they  that  receive 
baptism  rightly  are  grafted  into  the  church  ; the  promises  of 
the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  of  our  adoption  to  be  the  sons  of 
God  are  verily  signed  and  sealed  ; faith  is  confirmed,  and 
prayer  increased,  by  virtue  of  prayer  unto  God/^ 

9.  Who  were  the  Anabaptists? 

The  Anabaptists  (dm,  repetition)  were  a fanatical  sect 
which  sprang  up  at  the  Reformation  ; holding,  among  many 
revolutionary  tenets,  the  invalidity  of  infant  baptism.  They 
must  be  distinguished  from  the  Baptists,  who  in  the  seven- 
teenth century  arose  in  England  and  have  spread  extensively 
In  America. 

10.  What  is  the  general  position  of  the  Baptists  ? 

(i)  Their  view  of  the  Christian  church  is  that  it  consists 
of  those  who  give  credible  evidence  of  personal  faith  ; (2) 
they  admit  as  candidates  for  baptism  only  professed  believers  ; 
(3)  therefore  rejecting  the  baptism  of  infants  ; (4)  and  they 
regard  immersion  in  water  as  the  scriptural  rite. 

11.  By  what  arguments  are  these  principles  met  ? 

(1)  The  Christian  church  is  a continuation  of  the  one 

church  which  included  children  from  the  beginning.  Our 
Lord  precluded  all  misunderstanding  by  declaring  Of  such  is 
Matt  xix  kingdom  of  heaven  ; and  the  apostles  acoord- 

14.’  * ingly  never  ordain  it,  but  take  it  for  granted  : all 

Eph.  VI.  nations  including  all  families.  Hence  they  address 
children,  and  speak  of  them,  as  members  of  the  church. 

(2)  Baptism  is  the  final  seal  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  in 
particular  : of  which  circumcision  was  the  first  seal.  Baptism 
Col.  ii.  10,  is  the  circumcision  of  Christ.  The  baptised  are  heirs 
GaMii  29.  according  to  promise  : the  promise  which  is  unto  you 
Acts  ii.  39.  and  to  your  children. 

(3)  As  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  nothing  can  be  proved 
against  the  validity  of  immersion : the  original  word  admits 
this  meaning,  and  it  aptly  expresses  the  symbolical  idea  of 


The  Christian  Church. 


343 


baptism  unto  Christ,  buried  ivith  Mm  in  baptism.  But  it  is 
highly  probable  that  the  original  practice  was  .. 
pouring  or  sprinkling:  from  the  analogy  of  the  • 

phrases  used  to  signify  the  application  of  the  blood  of  sprink- 
ling and  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit ; and  from  the  fact 
that  multitudes  were  baptised. 

12.  Does  the  baptism  of  children  imply  that  the  grace  sealed 

in  the  sacrament  is  given  to  them  ? 

Certainly,  whatever  blessing  belongs  to  their  acceptance 
by  Christ  as  His  own,  to  their  being  acknowledged  as  included 
in  the  covenant,  to  their  being  received  into  the  Christian 
church,  and  admitted  to  the  adoption  of  children,  is  sealed  and 
given  to  them  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 

13.  Is  this  their  baptismal  regeneration? 

It  is  their  baptismal  adoption  : regeneration  is  the  change 
wrought  in  the  nature  when  the  Son  of  God  becomes  the 
power  of  a new  life  ; and  of  that,  as  of  internal  righteousness 
and  internal  purity,  unconscious  infants  are  incapable, 

14.  Is  such  a distinction  tenable? 

Let  the  following  considerations  be  weighed,  (i)  The 
blessing  of  our  Christian  estate — the  new  life  with  its  right- 
eousness and  sanctification — all  have  their  external  and 
internal  signification  or  aspect  : in  the  case  of  infants  we  can 
think  only  of  the  external.  (2)  Hence  in  their  baptism  they  are 
released  from  the  condemnation  resting  on  the  race,  they  are 
adopted  into  the  Divine  family,  and  they  are  outwardly 
sanctified  or  consecrated. 

15.  May  not  that  be  said  of  all  infants,  baptised  or  un- 

baptised? 

(i)  To  assert  this  is  to  make  void  the  Christian  covenant : 
to  the  conditions  of  which  God  binds  us,  though  He  does  not 
bind  Himself.  (2)  Moreover,  there  is  a difference  between  the 
general  grace  that  is  connate  with  redeemed  children  and  the 
special  promise  of  that  covenant. 

16.  But  can  unconscious  children  partake  of  grace  in  any 

way  ? 

As  certainly  as  they  partake  of  that  sin  which  needs 


344 


The  Spirifs  Administration. 


grace.  The  Spirit  of  the  chastening  and  admonition  of  the 
. Lord  is  pledged  to  them : that  Spirit  of  prevenient 
^ grace  which,  neither  in  adults  nor  in  infants,  is  full 

regeneration. 

V.  ^oxb's  §nppcv. 

§ 1.  ^rriptural, 

1.  What  means  this  sacrament? 

It  is  an  institution  ordained  for  perpetual  observance  to 
commemorate  the  Saviour  and  especially  His  death  ; to  be  the 
seal  of  the  individual  and  constant  union  of  His  people  with 
Him  by  faith  ; and  a bond  of  their  communion  with  each  other 
in  their  common  Lord  and  Head. 

2.  How  do  the  names  it  bears  indicate  this? 

(1)  It  is  the  Eucharist,  as  a thankful  commemoration  : 
from  the  Lord’s  act  of  giving  thanks.  It  may  be  observed 
I Cor.  xi.  24.  that  of  the  two  words  ei/xapto-r^Jcra?  €/<Aao-e  the  latter 
Acts  ii.  42.  gave  the  first  name  in  the  Acts,  the  former  we  adopt. 

(2)  It  is  the  Communion:  the  Koivixxvia^  participation  in 
1 Cor.  X.  16.  the  blood  and  in  the  body  of  Christ, 

(3)  It  is  THE  Lord’s  Supper  : that  is,  a common  feast ; 
When  therefore  ye  assemble  yourselves  together.  There  were 

gatherings  without  it  ; but  this  was  the  most  sacred 
iCor.  XI.  20.  gathering  ; hence  the  Greeks  called 

it  the  o-vvd^Ls* 

3.  How  was  the  institution  related  to  the  passover? 

Our  passover  also  hath  been  sacrificed,^  even  Christ.  He 
ordained  His  commeraorativ^e  feast  at  the  close  of  the  last 
xCor. V. 7.  typical  feast;  retained  its  cup  of  blessing ; but  in- 
iCor.  X.  16.  eluded  more  in  His  eucharist  than  the  ancient  rite 
represented. 

4.  What  light  does  its  history  in  the  New  Testament  shed? 

We  have  only  a few  references  ; fewer  than  to  the  other 
sacrament  ; but  enough. 

(1)  In  the  Acts  the  sacred  use  of  the  ordinance  is  referred 


The  Christian  Church. 


345 


to  as  very  common,  being  apparently  celebrated  on  the  Lord’s 
Day  ; and,  with  allusion  to  one  marked  symbolical  ..  ^ 
act,  as  the  breaking  of  bread.  ^ ^ 

(2)  In  the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  the  sacred 
use  is  referred  to,  but  chiefly  the  abuse.  There  we 
learn  that  it  was  connected  with  a previous  common  ^ 
feast,  the  Agapse  ; that  a prayer  of  invocation,  rather  than 
consecration,  was  offered  ; that  the  partaking  was  the  seal  ot 
fellowship  in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ ; that  the  apostle  makes 
an  emphatic  distinction  between  the  altar  of  the  i Cor.  x.  is, 
Jews  and  the  table  of  the  Lord  ; and  that  individual  ^ cor.xi,  29, 
self-examination  was  necessary,  in  order  that  those  31* 
who  DISCERNED  themselves  might  discern  the  Lord’s  body,  and 
not  be  judged. 

5.  What  is  St.  John’s  relation  to  this  sacrament? 

He  does  not  record  the  institution  of  this  or  the  other 
sacrament.  But,  as  in  the  third  chapter  of  his  Gospel  he  gives 
our  Lord’s  high  testimony  to  the  true  meaning  of  baptism,  so 
in  the  sixth  chapter  he  gives  His  testimony  to  the  tiue  mean- 
ing of  the  supper. 


§ 2.  I^iaton'cal. 

1.  What  were  the  first  traces  of  development  ? 

In  the  age  succeeding  the  apostles  both  the  doctrine  and 
the  usages  of  this  sacrament  were  uncorrupted.  But  after- 
wards signs  appeared  of  a tendency  to  make  it  the  central 
mystery  of  Christian  worship,  and  the  germs  of  those  coming 
errors  which  have  transubstantiated  the  whole  design  of  our 
Lord  in  its  institution. 

2.  How  did  they  commence  to  take  form  ? 

(1)  In  respect  to  the  eucharistical  sacrifice,  the  memorial 
character  was  gradually  changed  into  a renewal  of  the  one 
oblation  on  the  cross. 

(2)  And  then  of  necessity  the  emblems  were  gradually 
changed  into  the  very  substance  of  the  offering  itself. 

3.  Did  this  perversion  proceed  unchecked  ? 

In  the  ninth  century  there  was  a great  controversy. 
Paschasius  Radbertus  boldly  avowed  a conversion  of  the  ele- 


346 


The  spirit’’ s Administration. 


ments  : whence  this  error  is  sometimes  called  Paschasianism. 
In  the  eleventh  century  Berengarius  was  a protestant  on  this 
subject.  But  in  the  thirteenth  century,  at  the  Lateran  Council 
of  1215,  transubstantiation  and  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  took 
their  final  form. 

i.  What  followed  from  this  ? 

The  adoration  of  the  host  (hostia,  sacrifice),  with  the 
various  ceremonies  which  made  the  table  of  the  Lord  an  altar, 
and  His  simple  memorial  feast  a most  elaborate  ceremonial. 
Masses  were  offered  for  the  departed  : even  as  the  other  sacra- 
ment was  very  early  perverted  by  those  who  baptised  for  the 
dead. 

5.  Did  the  G-reek  church  keep  pace  ? 

In  essentials  it  did  ; but  it  did  not  withhold  the  cup  from 
the  laity,  and  administered  the  eucharist  to  children. 

6.  How  is  the  secret  mystery  of  transubstantiation  defined  ? 

On  the  one  hand,  it  is  declared  to  be  an  unsearchable 
mystery,  as  much  so  as  the  incarnation  : the  whole  Christ 
comes  into  being  anew  that  he  may  be  again  offered.  On  the 
other  hand,  this  explanation  is  offered  to  reason  : that  the  sub- 
stance of  bread  and  wine  are  gone,  but  the  accidents  remain. 

7.  What  was  the  Lutheran  protest  ? 

It  rejected  the  repetition  of  the  one  sacrifice,  as  also  the 
transubstantiation  of  the  elements.  But  it  insisted  on  a real 
presence  of  the  glorified  humanity  of  Christ  in  and  with  and 
UNDER  the  emblems  : literally  and  not  spiritually  partaken, 
for  good  or  evil.  This  has  been  termed  consubstantiation  : the 
real  Christ  with  the  substance  of  bread. 

8.  How  did  Calvin  and  the  Reformed  treat  it? 

Calvin’s  teaching,  keeping  far  from  the  Lutheran  actual 
participation  in  the  glorified  body  as  present  with  the  ele- 
ments, yet  regarded  the  feast  as  the  most  special  union  of  the 
soul  with  the  whole  Christ  in  heaven  by  faith.  And  Zuingli 
earnestly  maintained  a special  sacramental  blessing  in  the 
spiritual  eating. 


The  Christian  Church. 


347 


9.  What  is  the  teaching  of  the  Real  Presence  which  some 

make  their  watchword  ? 

It  is  the  dogma  which  has  come  about  between  Tran- 
substantiation  and  Consubstantiation  : making  the  effect  of 
priestly  consecration  to  be  the  conjunction  of  the  Lord  with 
the  elements  in  a real  manner  (pr^sei^tia  realis)  ; not 
that  He  is  spiritually  present,  and  only  to  faith. 

10.  If  this  is  abandoned  what  is  there  in  the  Lord’s  supper 

more  than  any  other  act  of  united  worship  ? 

There  is  a real  presence  by  the  Spirit,  who  specially 
reveals  Christ  as  the  Bread  of  Life  to  the  faith  of  the  recipient, 
at  once  assuring  him  of  his  communion  with  the  life  of  his 
Head  and  strengthening  that  life. 

VI.  §^risfian  liTinisfrfi. 

§ 1. 

1.  What  change  did  our  Lord  introduce? 

He  abolished  a sacrificing  priesthood,  being  Himself  the 
one  sacrifice  and  the  one  priest  ; and  the  effects  of  that  change 
were  very  great  throughout  the  whole  institution. 

2.  What  were  its  effects? 

The  character  of  the  institution  was  totally  changed. 
One  tribe  had  been  set  apart  for  the  functions  of  the  priest- 
hood ; it  was  no  longer  needed.  The  office  bearers  in  the  new 
community  were  to  have  mainly  spiritual  functions  ; and  to 
be  called  by  the  Spirit  individually. 

3.  How  does  the  term  ministry  indicate  this? 

Not  precisely  in  itself.  But  the  Lord  used  it  to  express 
His  service  to  mankind  ; and  throughout  the  New 
Testament  it  is  the  most  comprehensive  word,  in-  ^ -xx.  2. 
eluding  all  offices  to  which  the  Spirit  called  men  and  women 
in  the  Christian  community. 

4.  How  may  we  trace  the  history  of  the  ministry  in  the  New 

Testament  ? 

As  in  everything  else  the  events  opened  the  will  of  God. 


348 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


Our  Lord  sent  out  the  seventy,  whose  ministry  terminated  on 
Himself.  He  chose  the  Apostles  and  invested  them  with 
plenary  authority.  They  were  doubtless  instructed  by  Him- 
self during  the  forty  days ; and  afterwards  the  Spirit  directed 
them  : first,  to  organise  the  diaconate,  then  to  ordain  elders, 
Acts  XV.  2.  then  to  gather  these  elders  in  what  was  the  germ  of 
Acts  XX.  17.  future  synods.  St.  Paul  left  three  pastoral  epistles  in 
which  the  Christian  ministry  takes  its  final  form. 

§ 2.  iExtraordi'uarp  or  ^Transitional  i^mi'strp. 

1.  What  ground  is  there  for  this  distinction  ? 

We  have  clear  testimony  that  during  the  period  of  the 
first  establishment  of  Christianity  the  Lord  by  His  Spirit  gave 
special  endowments  to  special  persons  for  ministries  which  were 
not  transmitted  by  them  nor  continued  in  the  Church. 

2.  Is  there  any  evidence  that  these  were  transitory? 

Only  the  evidence  of  fact.  Comparing  the  two  passages  in 
which  St.  Paul  treats  this  subject  we  find  that  God  set,  and 
I Cor.  xii.  Christ  GAVE,  and  the  Spirit  divided  to,  each,  the 
. several  offices,  from  that  of  the  apostles  downwards; 
12.  but  m fact  some  of  them  were  not  bestowed  every- 

where, and  in  due  time  ceased. 

3.  Which  of  the  gifts  to  the  whole  church  ceased  ? 

Those  of  the  apostles  and  prophets  : these  two  are 

peculiarly  connected,  being  the  only  ones  common  to  those 
passages.  Three  times  thty  are  united  in  the  epistle  to  the 
..  Ephesians  : they  are  together  the  foundation,  to- 
Ephiiii.5.*  gether  receive  the  revelation  of  the  gospel,  and 
Eph.  IV.  II.  together  are  given  to  the  church.  A comparison  of 
these  passages  will  show  that  these  offices  were  not  meant  for 
permanence.  • 

4.  What  were  the  apostles  ? 

The  twelve  men  whom  the  Lord  chose  and  sent  with 
special  authority  and  endowment  to  lay  the  foundations  of 
churches  'and  finish  the  testimony  of  inspiration  to  His  own 
person  and  work. 

5.  How  was  their  office  discharged,  and  what  was  its  history  ? 

The  twelve  were  sent  chiefly  to  the  twelve  tribes  : the 


The  Christian  Church. 


349 


number  being  preserv^ed  by  the  choice  of  Matthias  instead  of 
Judas.  Three  of  these  were  chief,  and  of  these  three  Acts  i.  26. 
one  : the  labours  of  these  only  are  recorded.  Saul,  9- 
afterwards  Paul,  was  chosen  by  the  Lord  Himself  after  the 
ascension,  especially  for  the  Gentile  world.  They  . g 
exercised  supreme  authority,  as  the  direct  represen-  Acts  hy.  23. 
tatives  of  iheir  Master  ; left  no  successors  ; and  pro-  n.  2. 

vided  for  the  permanence  of  the  regular  ministry  before  they 
departed. 

6.  Did  they  discharge  all  their  duties  alone  ? 

They  reserved  their  apostolic  authority  and  responsibility  ; 
but  delegated  some  of  their  functions.  More  than  one  wrote 
holy  scripture  under  their  sanction ; Barnabas  was  Acts  xiv.  14. 
even  termed  an  apostle;  Timothy  and  Titus  were  2Xim.  iv.  5. 
sent  under  the  name  of  evangelists  to  carry  on  the  work  of  the 
apostle  Paul. 

7.  Were  not  evangelists  given  to  the  congregation  ? 

They  were  ; but  St.  Paul  does  not  place  them  among  the 
officers  who  were  set.  Their  function  was  irregular  ; exercised 
by  men  who,  though  not  set  apart  to  the  ministry,  preached 
the  word.  The  name  was  later  given  to  the  four  1C0r.xii.28. 
writers  of  the  gospels,  and  is  now  in  common  use  for  Actsviu.  5. 
such  as  are  set  apart  to  mission  preaching  : that  is,  preaching 
without  pastoral  function,  whether  ordained  or  unordained. 

8.  What  view  may  be  taken  of  the  transitional  ministry? 

It  was  adapted  to  the  time  of  foundation  : miracles  from 
God,  and  extraordinary  authority  among  men,  were  needful  at 
the  outset  ; afterwards  the  gospel  was  to  pervade  the  world 
as  leaven.  At  great  crises  men  are  still  raised  up  extraordi- 
narily : in  their  spirit,  but  not  with  their  name. 

♦ 

§ 3.  2Ti()e  ^^ermanent 

1.  How  was  the  regular  ministry  ordered? 

By  the  ordination  of  elders  to  preside  over  the  spiritual 
affairs  of  the  churches,  and  the  appointment  of  deacons  to 
preside  over  their  temporal  affairs. 

2.  What  was  common  to  these  two  ofidces? 

The  qualification  for  both  was  a sound  faith  and  an  in- 


350 


The  Spirits  Administration. 


corrupt  life  ; they  formed  distinct  orders  with  distinct  func- 
1 Tim.  iii.  i tions  ; and  are  alike  referred  to  as  representing  the 
9-  church. 

3.  What  was  the  difference  between  them? 

(i)  The  deacons’  office  was  not  clearly  defined ; it  was  held 
Rom.  xvi.  I.  by  both  sexes. 

I Tim.  V.  9.  ^2)  The  elders  were  set  apart  by  imposition  of 

hands  ; their  functions  are  very  fully  described  ; and  the 
responsibility  of  the  control  of  the  society  seems  to  have  rested 
only  with  them. 

4.  What  was  the  office  of  the  elders  ? 

The  pastoral  oversight  of  the  congregation  generally  ; 
particularly,  presiding  over  the  offices  of  worship,  preaching 
and  teaching  the  word,  and  administering  the  discipline  of  the 
community.  Of  all  this  they  had  the  responsibility. 

5.  Did  they  constitute  one  undivided  order? 

They  were  one  order : presbyters  and  bishops  are  in  the 
New  Testament  names,  used  interchangeably,  of  the  same 
Phil.  i.  I.  office.  Similarly,  the  teachers  and  rulers  were  not 
1 Tim. iii.  distinguished  from  each  other  ; the  apostle  describes 
the  qualifications  of  the  offices  in  such  a way  as  to  prove  this. 

6.  How  were  they  set  apart  ? 

I Tim.iv.14.  By  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery  ; and  of 
Th.^^s?  the  apostles’  hands,  while  they  yet  lived. 

7.  What  limitations  were  set  to  their  power? 

(i)  Their  responsibility  is  said  to  be  directly  to  the  Lord 
Heb  xiii  i Himself  *.  nevcr  to  any  other  tribunal. 

I Cor.  xii.^’  (2)  But  they  used  the  helps  raised  up  by  the 
Spirit : in  teaching,  preaching,  counsel  and  govern- 
ment. 

(3)  And  their  power  was  restrained  by  their  fellowship, 
more  or  less  intimate,  with  other  churches. 

8.  Have  we  any  evidence  as  to  this  last  point? 

It  pervades  the  apostolical  history.  The  apostles  and 
Acts  XV.  2.  elders  decide  common  questions  in  Jerusalem.  St. 
Acts  XX.  17.  Paul  summons  the  elders  or  bishops  to  Miletus 


The  Christian  Church. 


351 


And  there  is  constant  reference  to  the  customs  of  the  churches. 
All  these  give  hints  of  what  was  afterwards  a union  icor.  xi. 
of  churches. 

9.  Are  there  any  indications  of  the  gradual  rise  of  a higher 
order  than  that  of  presbyters? 

In  every  body  of  elders  one  would  have  the  first  place. 
He  seems  to  be  called  in  the  book  of  symbols  the  ..  ^ 
angel  of  the  church,  Timothy  and  Titus  evidently 
had  an  authority  like  that  of  the  apostles.  But  the  rise  of 
an  order  with  functions  and  prerogatives  such  as  were  very  early 
appropriated  to  the  bishops  has  no  trace  in  the  New  Testam*ent. 

§ 4.  J^tstorual. 

1.  What  is  the  range  of  historical  development  here? 

The  various  theories  of  the  Christian  ministry  are  the  key 
to  the  entire  history  of  Christendom,  in  its  strength  and  in  its 
weakness,  in  its  purity  and  in  its  corruption.  They  lie  also  at 
the  foundation  of  all  the  different  forms  of  church  government 

2.  How  did  that  development  proceed  at  first  ? 

(1)  The  ministry  were  very  early  regarded  as  the  Lord^s 
lot  (the  clems),  like  the  levitical  priesthood,  and  distinguished 
from  the  people  (laymen,  Aat/cot),  in  an  Ordo  sacerdotalis  or 
ecclesiasticus. 

(2)  During  the  ante-Nicene  age  the  episcopate  became 
universal  : the  bishop  being  the  representation  of  unity. 
There  were  countr}^-bishops  (chorepiscopi)  around  the  towns  ; 
with  metropolitan  bishops  of  the  leading  cities  ; and  all  local 
synods  represented  the  unity  of  the  episcopate,  which  repre- 
sented the  unity  of  the  church  : an  uninterrupted  succession  of 
bishops  from  the  apostles^  times  being  the  note  of  catholicity. 

(3)  This  led  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries  to  the  general 
acknowledgment  that  the  bishop  of  Rome,  the  successor  of 
St.  Peter,  was  the  final  umpire,  bond  of  union,  and  source  of 
authority  to  the  Christian  commonwealth. 

3.  Was  this  ever  accepted  by  the  universal  Church? 

Never  for  an  hour.  The  Eastern  Christians  retained  their 


352 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


independence  under  their  patriarchs  ; and  to  this  day  they  hold 
Romanism  to  be  the  first  form  of  Dissent. 

4.  How  are  we  to  understand  the  term  hierarchy  ? 

In  two  senses;  (i)  Within  the  ministry  itself  there  were 
major  and  minor  orders:  the  former  including  deacons,  priests 
or  presbyters,  and  bishops  ; and  the  bishops  having  their  grada- 
tion up  to  the  metropolitans  and  the  see  of  Rome.  (2)  As 
connected  with  the  State,  the  officials  of  the  Church  have  had, 
and  still  have  more  or  less  of  worldly  status  and  dignity. 

5.  Was  monasticism  related  to  the  ministry? 

Not  necessarily.  The  monastic  orders  were  confraternities 
under  special  vows ; at  first  chiefly  laymen  ; afterwards  com- 
posed of  clergy  and  laity  ; the  clergy  being  the  regulars,  or 
under  the  rule  of  their  orders,  as  distinguished  from  the 
seculars  who  ministered  in  the  general  church. 

6.  How  was  ministerial  power  defined  and  symbolized  ? 

As  the  power  of  the  keys  (potestas  clavium),  a term 
Matt.  xvi.  of  general  use  taken  from  our  Lord’s  words  to  St. 
Peter. 

7.  How  was  this  understood  ? 

By  some  in  early  times  as  referring  to  ecclesiastical  privi- 
leges,  granted  or  denied  ; by  others  as  signifying  the  authority 
of  priestly  absolution.  Finally,  however,  these  were  united 
in  the  doctrine  which  underlies  the  two  invented  sacraments 
of  penance  and  orders. 

8.  What  changes  did  the  reformation  effect  ? 

The  papal  or  pontifical  authority  was  rejected ; the  epis- 
copal order,  as  such,  was  abolished,  though  retained  in  Angli- 
canism ; the  idea  of  the  universal  priesthood  of  the  church 
was  made  prominent,  the  ministry  being  based  at  once  on  the 
appointment  of  the  Spirit  and  the  delegation  of  its  authority 
by  the  church  ; and,  finally,  the  power  of  the  keys  was  re- 
stricted to  the  discipline  of  the  church  and  the  declaration  of 
the  terms  of  forgiveness. 

9.  What  was  Calvin’s  special  innovation  ? 

The  eldership  or  presbyterate  was  established  in  its  rela- 


The  Christian  Church. 


353 


tion  as  presiding  over  the  churches,  in  all  courts  up  to  the 
highest : hence  the  system  of  Presbyterianism.  But  Calvin 
introduced  the  distinction  between  teaching  elders  and  ruling 
elders  ; founding  this  demarcation  on  one  passage  mainly : Let 
the  elders  that  rule  well  he  counted  worthy  of  double 
honour.,  especially  those  who  labour  in  the  word  and  ^ 
m teaching.  The  word  especially  does  not  warrant  any  such 
distinction. 

10.  How  was  this  an  innovation  ? 

From  the  beginning  the  ordained  elders,  who  are  said  to 
have  the  rule.,  had  been  set  apart  entirely  from 
worldly  cares:  the  modern  lay-elders  are  ordained  ^ -xm.  17. 
but  not  set  apart. 

11.  How  has  the  institution  of  the  ministry  been  modified  ? 
By  most  of  the  protestant  communities  the  two  orders 

of  presbyters  and  deacons  have  been  preserved,  but  with  much 
latitude  in  the  terminology.  The  Anglican  retained  the  sepa- 
rate order  and  authority  of  bishops  ; and  made  the  diaconate 
more  directly  pastoral.  The  Lutherans  adopted  the  ancient 
term  superintendents  for  certain  pastors  who  had  the  charge 
of  districts  ; though  in  Scandinavia  they  use  the  term  bishops. 

12 . What  tendencies  to  abolish  the  ministry  are  to  be  noted  ? 
The  Society  of  Friends  applied  the  same  principle  to  this 

which  they  had  applied  to  the  church  and  the  sacraments  : 
they  hold  the  ordinances  of  the  New  Testament  to  have  been 
intended  for  transitory  use  ; limiting  the  ministry  to  an  indi- 
vidual secret  call  of  the  Spirit. 

13.  What  developments  have  been  seen  in  modern  times  ? 
Two  opposite  extremes  have  appeared  of  late,  (i)  The 

Brethren,  so  called,  renounce  the  communion  of  the  present 
visible  church  in  any  of  its  forms,  and  deny  the  Divine  autho- 
rity of  an  ordained  ministry  ; (2)  the  Catholic  Apostolic 

Church  is  based  on  the  presumption  that  God  has  in  these 
last  days  restored  the  orders  of  the  transitional  ministry  : 
apostles,  prophets,  angels,  and  even  speakers  with  tongues. 

14.  What  principles  should  we  maintain  ? 

(i)  That  the  government  of  the  church  by  elders  or 


354 


The  Spirit's  Administration. 


presbyters  is  clearly  an  ordinance  of  God  ; (2)  that  the  laity, 
by  their  representatives,  originally  called  deacons,  are  to  be 
joined  with  the  elders  in  everything  pertaining  to  the  church’s 
tables  ; (3)  that  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  no  longer  miraculous, 
are  given  to  both  classes  alike  for  the  general  good. 


III. 

§^urc^  as  an  ^rgantsafion  for  ^orld. 

1.  What  topics  arise  tinder  this  head? 

Many  of  great  importance  : such  as  the  responsibility  of 
the  church  as  the  depository  and  defender  of  the  truth  ; its 
missionary  vocation  ; the  methods  of  its  spread  ; the  relations 
of  all  its  communities  to  each  other  ; and  their  common  rela- 
tion to  the  kingdom  for  which  they  all  prepare. 

2.  How  is  the  church  the  depository  of  the  truth  ? 

As  the  Jews  were  entrusted  with  the  oracles  of  God^  so 
was  the  Faith  once  for  all  delivered  unto  the  saints.  Here  the 
Rom.  iii.  2.  Faith  is  objective,  and  signifies  the  Christian  reve- 
judes.  lation  ; the  saints,  also,  is  an  expression  that  denotes, 
not  the  sanctified  as  such,  but  the  body  of  professed  believers. 

3.  And  how  is  that  deposit  to  be  kept  ? 

Wherever  the  church  of  Christ  is  found,  it  has  the  com- 
pleted scriptures  as  its  best  possession : to  be  its  standard  of 
faith  and  its  directory  of  duty  and  its  charter  of  privileges. 
To  guard  the  ver}^  text  of  these  scriptures  is  an  important 
function  of  the  Christian  community. 

4.  Is  the  defence  of  the  faith  limited  to  this? 

It  is  the  duty  of  every  church,  as  it  is  of  every  individual 
Christian,  to  defend  the  truth  against  unbelievers  : by  its 
literature  and  pulpit  to  give  a reason  of  the  Chris- 
I et.ui.  15.  hope.  Against  heresies  and  all  heresy  it  must 
protest  by  its  creeds  and  confessions  of  faith. 


The  Christian  Church. 


355 


5.  How  does  the  history  of  the  church  illustrate  this 

function  ? 

The  early  symbols  were  for  ages  a bond  of  union  ; and 
such  they  still  are,  especially  the  Apostles’  and  the  Nicene,  the 
two  really  catholic  creeds.  The  later  confessions  are  mainly 
protests  or  defences  against  the  corruptions  of  the  ancient 
churches  ; and  are  rather  to  be  held  as  regulative  standards. 

6.  But  do  not  the  differences  in  these  show  that  the  church 

of  Christ  has  not  answered  its  end? 

By  no  means:  there  is  a body  of  truth  common  to  them 
all  ; and  the  differences  only  prove  that  it  is  not  the  Lord’s 
will  that  His  church  should  be  perfected  on  earth  : in  other 
words,  the  end  for  which  the  church  is  raised  up  is  not  the 
establishment  of  a perfect  dogmatic  system  of  truth. 

7.  Does  the  missionary  vocation  express  the  end  of  the 

church  ? 

It  expresses  that  end  so  far  as  the  external  world  is  con- 
cerned. Visible  churches  are  organisations  for  the  spread  of 
the  gospel  and  the  preparation  for  the  final  kingdom. 

8.  Has  the  history  of  the  church  witnessed  fidelity  to  this  ? 

The  missionary  activity  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  con- 
tinued during  the  early  ages  in  its  purity ; after  the  union  of 
the  state  with  the  church  the  propagation  of  the  gospel  went 
on,  but  too  much  under  worldly  influences,  for  ages.  The 
sixteenth  century  was  not  careful  enough  to  include  this  great 
duty  of  Christendom  among  its  reforms  ; but  the  present  cen- 
tury has  witnessed  an  extensive  revival  of  missionary  zeal. 

9.  Then,  as  the  world  is  to  be  converted,  what  are  the 

ecclesiastical  theories  of  the  process? 

They  are  various : in  fact,  every  doctrine  of  the  church 
has  its  distinct  doctrine  of  missions.  The  papal  system  has 
never  swerved  from  the  fixed  aim  to  bring  all  nations  under 
the  chair  of  St.  Peter.  Some  hold  to  the  national  or  territorial 
theory:  that  national  branches  of  Christendom  doing  their 
duty  at  home  and  abroad  will  make  Christianity  in  due  time 
universal.  The  more  general  idea  in  this  age  is  that  many 
16 


356 


God  and  the  Creature. 


denominations  sending  out  independent  missions  will  gradually 
win  the  world  to  the  obedience  of  faith. 

10.  What  is  the  result  of  the  whole  ? 

We  must  be  on  our  guard  against  opposite  errors. 

(1)  The  church  as  an  institution  must  not  be  overvalued: 
it  is  not  an  institution  that  has  any  marks  of  perfection  or 
permanence  ; it  is  only  the  earthly  house  out  of  which  the 
spiritual  house  is  rising  ; and  it  is  utterly  vain  to  seek  an  out- 
ward ecclesiastical  constitution,  great  or  small,  which  perfectly 
answers  the  ideal  presented  in  the  New  Testament. 

(2)  On  the  other  hand,  the  visible  church  is  the  instru- 
ment used  by  its  Head  for  the  accomplishment  of  His  purposes. 
The  humblest  and  most  obscure  denomination  which  is  based 
upon  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  and  the 
evangelical  system  of  truth  which  rests  upon  the  Three  Divine 
Persons,  is  taken  up  into  the  government  of  the  church  for 
the  salvation  of  the  world. 

(3)  The  Spirit  of  Christ  is  the  Lord  and  Giver  of  life, 
organic  and  ecclesiastical  j and  we  cannot  look  abroad  upon 
Christendom  without  being  constrained  to  admit  that  He  calls 
into  existence  and  vivifies  and  uses  communities  which,  having 
one  common  standard  of  appeal,  differ  in  many  subordinate 
matters. 

(4)  In  every  consideration  of  this  subject,  whether  as  it 
regards  our  own  position  or  as  teachers  of  others,  we  must 
always  remember  that  the  one  and  only  true  church  is  that 
which  is  possessed  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Head  and  one  with  Him. 


BOOK  VII 


The  Last  Things. 


I,  DEATH  AND  THE  INTERMEDIATE  STATE. 

II.  THE  SECOND  COMING  OF  CHRIST:  RE- 

SURRECTION AND  JUDGMENT. 

m.  THE  CONSUMMATION. 


'^Zr  '•  ■ '.V  ',  : 


The  Last  Things. 


359 


BOOK  VII, 

^ast  flings. 

^Prelintmarp* 

1.  Have  we  here  an  altogether  new  field  before  us? 

Not  altogether  new  ; since  many  of  the  doctrinal  and 
ethical  teachings  of  Christianity  have  already  carried  us  on  to 
the  other  world.  But  there  are  some  aspects  of  the  future  that 
have  not  yet  been  considered,  and  which  are  generally  em- 
braced under  eschatology,  or  the  last  things. 

2.  How  are  these  subjects  viewed  in  the  New  Testament? 

As  things  expressly  revealed  ; of  supreme  importance ; 
and  constantly  affecting  the  present  life, 

3.  But  can  they  be  said  to  be  expressly  revealed? 

There  is  no  clearer  revelation  in  scripture  than  that  which 
unfolds  the  future : every  Christian  doctrine  without  excep- 
tion has  its  fixed  issues  in  the  other  world.  The  leading 
truths  of  eschatology  are  perfectly  plain. 

4.  Whence  then  the  obscurity  which  all  men  feel? 

First,  from  the  nature  of  the  subjects  themselves,  which 
though  certainly  revealed  are  such  as  surpass  the  limits  of 
human  understanding.  Secondly,  the  times  and  seasons  are 
obscure  for  ethical  reasons : their  uncertainty  is  one  main  ele- 
ment in  their  moral  effect,  but  at  the  same  time  wraps  them 
in  a certain  undogmatic  indefiniteness. 

5.  What  is  the  perspective  opened  out  in  the  New  Testament  ? 

It  varies  in  different  parts  : sometimes  the  return  of 
Christ  seems  to  embrace  all  ; sometimes  the  resurrection  and 
the  judgment ; sometimes  the  future  estate  of  happiness. 


36o 


The  Last  Things. 


6.  Guided  by  the  tenour  of  New-Testament  revelation  what 

analysis  may  be  made  ? 

First,  there  is  the  intermediate  state  of  departed  souls  ; 
then  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  for  resurrection  and  judg- 
ment ; and  then  the  end  of  the  redeeming  economy. 

7.  With  what  sentiment  should  we  approach  this  ? 

Entirely  limiting  ourselves  to  the  revelation  of  scripture. 
Where  that  is  plain,  with  fearless  confidence  ; where  it  fails  us, 
with  profound  caution  and  submission  to  be  ignorant. 


Chapter  I. 

^ntexxncbiate  §tatc. 

1.  How  is  this  term  related  to  the  subject  ? 

It  expresses  that  idea  of  an  interval  between  the  imperfec- 
tion of  the  present  life  and  the  perfection  of  the  final  state  of 
believers  which  is  taught  in  the  New  Testament. 

2.  In  what  other  ways  is  this  estate  of  men  referred  to? 

It  is  spoken  of  generally  as  death,  as  the  state  of  the  dead, 
and  as  the  intermediate  state  of  the  dead.  These  three  in  their 
relation  open  the  whole  subject. 

3.  But  does  not  the  holy  text  warn  us  against  making  this 

a special  department  of  dogmatics  ? 

Certainly  it  tells  us  that  //  ts  appointed  unto  men  once  to 
die^  and  after  this  cometh  judgment ; but  the  interval  between 
death  and  judgment  is  largely  dilated  on,  and  has 
Hcb.  IX.  27.  important  ethical  bearings  in  the  Christian  scriptures. 

4.  Is  there  much  revelation  to  guide  us? 

Perhaps  there  is  no  region  of  theology  on  which  there  is 
poured  a clearer  light  : whether  we  regard  its  relation  to  the 
past  or  its  relation  to  the  future. 


The  Intermediate  State. 


361 


5.  But  have  not  many  great  errors  been  founded  on  this 
page  of  revelation? 

For  that  very  reason,  as  also  for  its  great  practical  im- 
portance, we  should  carefully  study  the  text  of  scripture. 


§ 1.  33rat^. 

1.  How  do  we  here  view  death? 

As  the  introduction  to  another  world,  and  therefore  as  an 
event  in  the  history  of  fallen  and  redeemed  man  : the  separation 
of  the  soul  from  the  body. 

2.  From  what  death  is  this  distinguished  ? 

(i)  From  annihilation,  which  death  never  means  in  the 
Bible ; (2)  from  spiritual  death,  which  is  separation  of  the  soul 
from  God,  and  is  independent  of  natural  death  : He 
that  hath  the  Son  hath  life  ; and  he  that  hath  not  the  * 

Son.,  hath  not  life.,  that  is,  is  spiritually  dead.  And  of  course 
(3)  from  eternal  death,  which  is  only  the  spiritual  death  with- 
out hope. 


3.  What  is  the  relation  of  this  physical  death  to  sin  and 
redemption  ? 

It  was  the  first  outward  and  visible  manifestation  of  the 
effect  of  sin  ; and  it  will  be  the  last  effect  of  sin  ^ 
from  which  we  shall  be  saved  : the  last  enemy  that  i cor.  xy.  26. 
shall  be  destroyed.  Meanwhile  our  Saviour  hath  * 
abolished  death.,  and  brought  life  and  incorruption  {aej^Oapatav) 
to  light  through  the  gospel. 


4.  How  can  the  abolition  of  death  and  its  universality  be 
reconciled  ? 

(1)  The  word  here  used  (like  some  others  of  the  same 

class)  signifies  to  annul  or  negative : so  the  body  of  ^ 

sin,  sin  itself,  the  works  of  the  devil,  are  said  to  be  Heb.*ix.‘26. 
destroyed  or  abolished  or  done  away.  ^ 

(2)  Death  in  every  sense  is  really  negatived  as  a sentence 
of  condemnation;  and  life  is  offered  to  all. 

(3)  And  life  and  incorruption  will  hereafter  cause  it  to  be 
forgotten  as  a penalty. 

(4)  Meanwhile,  it  is  continued  and  taken  up  into  the  dis- 
cipline of  mankind  : as  a race  and  as  individuals. 


362 


The  Last  Things. 


5.  How  is  the  Christian  doctrine  of  death  connected  with 

immortality  ? 

There  are  two  terms,  incorruption  and  immortality^  which 
are  both  used  with  reference  to  the  resurrection  of  the 
I Cor.  XV.  53,  body.  The  immortality  of  the  spirit  has  nothing 
54‘  ’ to  do  with  the  doctrine  of  death.  Corruption  and 

mortality  are  two  aspects  of  the  same  change  of  existence,  which 
implies  that  the  existence  continues. 

6.  Is  then  the  soul,  apart  from  the  body,  naturally  immortal  ? 

Man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God,  Who  only  hath  im^ 
iTim.vi.i6.  mortality. 

7.  Did  not  our  Saviour  bring  back  to  man  a forfeited 

existence  ? 

That  is  not  the  doctrine  of  scripture.  He  Himself  tasted 
death  for  every  man  ; and  endured  the  death  from  which  He 
Heb  ii  saved  us : physical  death  as  separation  of  soul  and 
^ body;  spiritual  death  as  the  sense  of  separation  of 

the  soul  from  God ; but  not  the  forfeiture  of  being  in  any  sense. 

8.  How  does  the  Christian  revelation  distinguish  the  death 

of  believers  from  that  of  others  ? 

(i)  By  terms  peculiar  : it  is  rest^  and  sleep  in  Jesus^  and 
2Thess.i.7.  departure  ox  decease. 

1 Thess*.  iv.  (2)  By  making  it  the  end  and  consummation  of  a 
2Tim.  iv.6.  voluntary  sacrifice  of  self  in  union  with  the  Lord; 

which  God  is  glorified,  and  the  final  victory 
I Cor.^xv.55;  gained,  and  death  really  abolished  : Whosoever  liveth 
John  XI.  26.  helieveth  in  Me  shall  never  die.  Hence  the  day 

of  Christ  rather  than  death  is  always  prominent. 


§ 2.  2Tt)e  ItmgUom  of  t!)e  30eaU. 

1.  Does  the  New  Testament  assign  locality  and  state  to  the 
departed  ? 

In  two  ways  it  does  so : (i)  by  separating  the  dead  from 
the  living;  (2)  by  assigning  a place  corresponding  to  the 
character  of  each  class. 


The  Intermediate  State. 


363 


2.  Is  there  any  resemblance  between  the  Old  Testament 

and  the  New  in  this  ? 

As  in  every  other  department  of  revelation,  we  find  the 
old  doctrine  not  taken  away  but  transfigured  and  glorified. 
Continuance  after  death  is  taught  throughout  the  ancient 
scriptures;  but  our  Saviour  has  brought  life  and  in- 
corruption  to  light  through  the  gospel : He  has  shed 
light  upon  what  was  obscure  ; light  sufficient  for  our  present 
probation. 

3.  What  was  the  Old-Testament  view  of  the  other  state  ? 

Throughout  we  find  an  underworld,  sheol,  in  which  dis- 
embodied spirits  congregate,  below  the  grave  in  which  their 
bodies  lie.  But  until  He  who  is  our  Life  appeared,  it  pleased  God 
to  limit  religious  probation  very  much  to  the  present  world. 

4.  What  were  the  characteristics  of  that  estate  ? 

It  is  regarded  as  the  receptacle  of  all  the  dead : with 
faint  traces  of  distinction  between  good  and  evil,  jobxxx.23. 
and  without  the  bright  anticipation  introduced  by 

the  gospel.  Eccles.  xLq 

6.  How  is  the  state  of  the  departed  referred  to  in  the  Gospels  ? 

In  a continuation  of  the  Old-Testament  style  : so  it  is  in 
the  parable  of  Lazarus.  But  the  later  Jewish  doctrine  Luke  xvi.  23. 
of  a division  in  hades  between  the  gehenna  of  fire 
and  the  paradise  of  happiness  is  alluded  to  and  Mark  ix.  43. 

sanctioned.  Lukexxiu. 

6.  What  change  did  our  Lord’s  resurrection  introduce  ? 

From  that  time  the  phraseology  changes.  The  terms 
hades  and  gehenna  and  paradise  are  seldom  used  ; Rev.  i.  is. 
though  the  Apocalypse  attests  their  reality.  Rev.  xx.  14. 

7.  How  does  this  bear  upon  our  modern  Christian  vocabulary  ? 

The  New  Testament  does  not  speak  of  heaven  as  entered 
or  hell  as  receiving  the  wicked  until  the  day  of  judgment.  It 
does  not,  apart  from  the  Apocalypse,  vividly  define  the  two 
regions  in  hades.  Hence  there  is  some  room  for  amendment 
in  our  customary  phraseology ; at  least  in  the  interpretation  it 
carries  to  our  minds. 

16* 


3^4 


The  Last  Things. 


§ 3.  Its  Itttermelitate  ©f)aracter. 

!•  What  errors  are  indicated  by  this  phrase? 

That  of  regarding  death  as  introducing  to  a consummate 
estate  ; that  of  making  it  merely  a waiting  place  for  an  ^tirely 
unknown  decision. 

2.  What  scriptural  objection  is  there  to  death  being  regarded 

in  either  of  these  lights? 

(1)  As  to  the  former  : the  entire  revelation  of  judgment, 
with  the  glorious  promises  and  the  awful  doom  that  are  dated 
from  that  day,  lose  their  reality  if  we  suppose  that  death  is  an 
immediate  introduction  to  the  final  heaven.  As  saved,  we  are 
Rom.  viii.  'Waiting  for  our  adoption^  to  wit^  the  redemption  of  our 

23-  body, 

(2)  As  to  the  latter : the  entire  revelation  of  the  great 
release  and  victory  in  dying — O death where  is  thy  stmgf — 

1 Cor.  XV.  55.  and  our  being  with  the  Lord^  forbid  the  thought  that 

2 Cor.  V.  8.  redeemed  are  uncertain  as  to  their  future, 

3.  What  kind  of  activity  or  progress  is  indicated  as  possible 

or  probable  ? 

As  we  reject  the  sleep  of  the  soul,  we  must  believe  that 
its  thoughts,  feelings  and  volitions  will  go  on  in  the  course 
determined  in  life : that  is,  be  subject  to  development  And 
it  may  be  that  what  was  an  almost  unconscious  preparation  for 
the  gospel  may  be  quickened  into  its  conscious  activity.  But 
here  revelation  keeps  silence. 

4.  How  can  this  be  distinguished  from  probation  ? 

Probation  as  it  concerns  man  is  bound  up  with  the  present 
life,  its  trials,  its  opportunities,  and  its  duties : it  is  that  of 
man  in  his  integrity  as  body  and  soul,  redeemed  by  Christ. 

At  the  judgment  men  are  made  manifest,  each 
2 Cor.  V.  10.  receive  the  things  done  in  the  body, 

5.  What  bearing  has  our  Lord’s  descent  to  hades  on  this 

subject  generally  ? 

It  is  a clear  testimony  that  the  Redeemer  of  mankind  has 
Rom.  xiv.  9.  taken  possession  of  the  estate  of  the  dead.  He  is  the 


The  Intermediate  State. 


365 


Lord  of  both  the  dead  and  the  living.  He  went  and  preached 
unto  the  spirits  in  prison ; but  what  His  proclama-  ^ ...  ^ 

tion  was  we  know  not,  and  this  text  carries  no  doc-  ^ ^ 
trine.  This  however  we  know,  that  the  province  of  the  dead 
is  in  the  charge  of  the  just  and  merciful  Friend  of  mankind. 

6.  Does  the  Apocalypse  throw  light  on  the  intermediate 
state  ? 

Very  much  : for,  though  it  is  a book  of  visions  and  symbols, 
there  is  throughout  a ground  of  reality.  It  teaches  that  the 
departed  are  in  a state  of  full  activity,  serving  their  Rev.  vii.  15. 
Lord  day  and  night  in  His  temple^  even  as  their 
fellow  sei^ants  also^  and  their  brethren  below,  Rev.  vU.  14, 
waiting  in  patience  and  hope,  and  crying,  long}  Rev*  xx.  u, 
They  have  washed  their  robes ; but  the  Lord  is  ^3* 
their  Shepherd  still.  The  state  of  the  departed  ungodly  is  not 
referred  to ; but  the  general  judgment  is  the  end  to  which  all 
vistas  of  prophecy  lead, 

§ 4.  I^istorical. 

1.  What  has  been  the  general  current  of  human  thought 

on  this  subject? 

The  mythologies  of  almost  all  nations  show  traces  of  a 
belief  that  the  soul  passes  after  death  into  a state  of  activity 
without  the  body:  either  into  a series  of  transmigrations,  as 
in  the  East ; or  to  an  immediate  judgment,  as  in  the  West. 

2.  What  speculations  belong  particularly  to  Christian  times  ? 

They  have  ranged  over  three  distinct  lines : regarding  the 
intermediate  state  as  one  of  unconsciousness  ; or  as  the  sphere 
of  purgatorial  discipline  ; or  as  a continuation  of  the  earlier 
neglected  probation. 

3.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  theory  that  the  soul  sleeps 

till  the  judgment  ? 

It  sprang  from  a materialistic  view,  which  cannot  separate 
man  from  his  bodily  organisation.  The  great  lesson  of  the 
intermediate  state  is  that  man  can  exist  in  spirit : the  bodily 
investiture  figuratively  given  to  the  departed  in  scripture 
cannot  be  with  any  good  result  investigated. 


366 


The  Last  Things. 


4.  How  is  this  to  be  refuted  ? 

By  its  own  intrinsic  inconsistency  : if  the  soul  sleeps,  it  is  in 
existence.  But  it  is  opposed  by  the  whole  tenour  of  scripture, 
Heb.  xii.  23.  which  speaks  of  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect ; 
2 Cor.  V.  8.  and  links  being  absent  from  the  and  being  at 
home  with  the  Lord, 

6.  What  is  the  dogma  of  purgatory  in  relation  to  this  ? 

Very  early  traces  are  found  in  the  fathers  of  the  general 
teaching  that  departed  Christians  finish  their  discipline  ot 
sanctification  so  as  by  fire  : perverting  that  text  and 

1 Cor.  111.  15.  others.  But  mediaeval  scholasticism  divided 

the  intermediate  region  into  many  mansions  : a limbus  foi 
the  ancient  saints  ; for  children  unbaptised;  for  the  heathen  ; 
and  for  imperfect  Christians,  the  great  majority.  This  last  is 
the  dogma  proper  : which,  with  its  concomitants  of  masses 
and  prayers  for  the  dead,  and  indulgences,  has  no  warrant  of 
scripture. 

6.  How  is  the  theory  of  intermediate  probation  maintained 
by  its  advocates  ? 

This  goes  much  further  than  the  dogma  of  purgatory, 
which  is  a severe  pathway  to  heaven.  This  theory  supposes 
that  the  gospel  is  still  preached  in  the  other  world,  to  be 
accepted  or  rejected:  in  fact,  that  at  the  final  judgment  each 
will  receive  the  things  done  in  the  separate  spirit 

2 or.  V.  10.  things  done  m the  body. 


7.  In  what  light  is  this  placed  by  the  New  Testament  ? 

Not  merely  does  it  give  no  text  for  this  hope  ; it  precludes 
it.  Undoubtedly  the  Lord  seems  to  encourage  it  in  two  pas- 
Luk-xvi  2 remember  / of  His  parable,  and  in 

Matt.Yxvl^^*  the  When  saw  we  Thee  ? of  His  description  of  the 
Lu^exvi.26.  judgment.  But  in  the  former  the  great  gulf  is 
fixed,  and  in  the  latter  the  accepted  who  had  been 
ignorant  of  Him  were  the  inhabitants  of  earth  in  time. 


8.  What  is  our  safeguard  ? 

To  hold  fast  and  preach  the  gospel  of  the  day  of  salva- 
tion ; and  to  leave  the  dead,  without  theorising  about  them 
or  the  mysteries  of  their  destiny,  to  their  Lord  and 

2 or.  VI.  2 Qyj-3^ 


The  Second  Coming  of  Christ. 


367 


Chapter  II. 

§ccon5  goming  of  §§visf:  "^csttmcfion  an6 
§ui»gmettf. 

I. 

^ocott6  ©oming. 

§ 1.  S)cvtpture. 

1 . How  many  advents  of  Christ  are  spoken  of  ? 

Two  only.  Though  the  phrase  Second  coming  ” does 
not  occur,  the  return  of  Jesus  is  always  referred  to  as  an  event 
unique  and  final : precisely  as  His  first  coming  was  referred  to 
in  the  Old  Testament. 

2.  How  does  the  New  Testament  describe  it? 

By  a variety  of  terms,  which  may  be  classed  as  terms  of 
mission  and  coming,  manifestation  and  presence,  each  of  them 
giving  it  a distinct  character  ; and  also  by  the  results  that 
follow,  as  it  is  the  day  of  the  Lord  issuing  in  the  resurrection 
of  all  and  the  general  judgment. 

3.  What  do  the  terms  of  mission  teach  ? 

(i)  That  the  return  of  our  Lord,  Whom  the  heaven  must 
receive  until  the  times  of  restoration  of  all  things^  is  Actsiii. 
the  appointed  end  of  His  mediatorial  work  of  sub- 
ordination  : that  He  may  send  the  Christ  who  hath  been  appointed 
for  you  even  Jestis,  {2)  This  must  interpret  the  words  in  which 
His  coming  is  spoken  of : I come  again.  This  Jesus.,  johnxiv  3 
which  was  received  up  from  you  into  heaven  shall  so  Actsi.  n.  ’ 
zome.  Behold.,  He  cometh  with  the  clouds,  . 

4.  In  what  sense  will  it  be  a manifestation  ? 

First,  He  will  be  no  longer  in  the  invisible  world : When 
Christy  who  is  our  life,  shall  be  manifested.  Hence  Coi.  iii.  4. 


368 


The  Last  Things. 


it  is  the  Trapovoriay  which  is,  strictly  speaking,  the  presence 
with  His  people  that  follows  His  coming.  Secondly,  His  second 
coming  in  glory  is  thus  distinguished  from  the  first  in  humilia- 
tion : tve  look  for  the  appear  in of  the  glory  of  our 
Titus  11. 13.  Saviour  Jesus  Christ* 

5.  What  is  the  emphasis  of  His  day? 

It  refers  to  the  set  time  of  the  Lord^s  coming,  as  the  day 
of  the  Lord ; and  also  indicates,  according  to  scriptural  usage, 
a supreme  manifestation  of  His  person  and  consum- 
Zeph.Tiit  nation  of  His  work.  The  day  of  the  Lord  is  used  in 
Phil  1%  Testament  to  signify  any  great  display  of 

Jehovah’s  power,  whether  in  mercy  or  in  judgment ; 
and  the  day  of  Jesus  Christy  the  New-Testament  Jehovah, 
signifies  everywhere  the  final  demonstration  both  of  His  love 
and  of  His  wrath  : in  the  judgment  and  in  the  consummation 
of  all  things. 

6.  Are  all  these  terms  limited  to  one  external  and  future 

event  ? 

Both  “ coming  ” and  manifestation  ” are  sometimes 
used  to  describe  the  Lord’s  presence  by  His  Spirit  in  His 
T hn  i I and  the  hearts  of  His  people  : I will  love 

him.^  and  will  manifest  myself  unto  him.  We  will 
Gai.i.  15, 16.  come  unto  him.  1 will  not  leave  you  desolate  : I come 
unto  you.  It  pleased  God  .,,  to  reveal  His  Son  in  me.  But 
in  every  such  case  there  is  something  to  indicate  that  it  is 
personal  and  internal. 

§ 2.  5^1'ston'cal. 

1.  What  errors  have  arisen  as  to  the  Lord’s  second  coming  ? 

Two  opposite  classes  : each  having  a variety  of  forms. 
First,  it  has  been  unduly  spiritualised,  as  if  all  was  fulfilled  in 
His  spiritual  coming  at  Pentecost  or  the  destruction  of  Judaism. 
Secondly,  it  has  been  unduly  carnalised,  mainly  by  those  who 
have  taught  the  literal  reign  of  a thousand  years. 

2.  How  may  we  meet  the  former  class  of  interpreters  ? 

By  pointing  to  the  emphasis  with  which  the  New  Testa- 
ment speaks  of  the  definite  events  which  will  precede 
1 Tim.  VI.  15.  Lord’s  coming  : il  has  its  own  times j as  the  con- 


The  Second  Coming  of  Christ. 


369 


summation  of  many  lesser  times  or  seasons.  Nothing  is 
plainer  than  that  it  marks  one  determinate  historical 

^ ^ Acts  1. 7. 

event. 

3.  What  is  the  nature  of  the  other,  and  more  Important,  error  ? 

It  is  called,  generally,  Millenarianism,  from  the  thousand 
years’^  of  Christ’s  supposed  visible  reign  : Chiliasm  being  the 
Greek  form  of  the  same  word.  More  particularly  it  is  Pre- 
millenarianism  : the  pre  signifying  that  Christ’s  second  advent 
and  the  first  resurrection  are  before  the  millennium,  and,  that 
a third  advent  and  a second  resurrection  will  follow  it. 

4.  Did  the  early  Christian  ages  embrace  this  view  ? 

(i)  The  Judaising  Christians  brought  the  notion  to  the 
interpretation  of  prophecy  ; (2)  it  was  largely  held  by  many 
individual  fathers;  (3)  it  was  strenuously  opposed  by  the 
Alexandrian  divines ; (4)  it  did  not  appear  in  the  Three  Creeds, 
the  note  of  which  is  one  personal  coming  at  the  end  of  all  ; (5) 
after  the  Nicene  Council  it  gradually  disappeared,  at  least  for 
a season,  the  temporal  prosperity  of  the  church  helping  this. 

5.  What  was  the  subsequent  history  of  the  doctrine  ? 

At  the  end  of  the  first  Christian  millennium,  Christendom 
was  almost  universally  disturbed  by  an  expectation  of  the  end 
of  the  world  : showing  how  deeply  rooted  was  the  millenarian 
hope.  After  the  reformation,  the  Anabaptists  in  Germany 
wildly  perverted  this  idea,  as  the  fanatics  of  the  Commonwealth 
did  in  England.  The  confessions  of  the  seventeenth  century 
without  exception  condemned  it.  And  it  may  be  said  that,  as 
it  was  a note  of  Judaising  in  early  times,  so  in  the  mediaeval 
church  it  was  a badge  of  fanaticism. 

6.  But  has  it  not  acquired  greater  theological  importance 

in  later  times  ? 

It  has,  in  the  present  century,  entered  with  more  or  less 
distinctness  into  the  teaching  of  many  communions  ; and  has 
become  almost  the  distinguishing  tenet  of  a few. 

7.  With  what  effect? 

Its  adherents  have  often  made  it  a watchword  of  exclusive- 
ness : elevating  into  an  article  of  faith  the  habitual  expectation 
of  the  Lord’s  appearance  to  reign  on  the  earth.  It  has  given 


370 


The  Last  Things. 


rise  to  a carnal  interpretation  of  the  prophecies,  especially  those 
of  the  Old  Testament,  thus  disturbing  the  steady  faith  of  Chris- 
tians in  the  Lord’s  one  future  coming  to  judgment.  It  has  put  a 
forced  construction  on  the  plain  chronological  series  of  events 
which  are  predicted  as  preparing  for  the  advent.  And  it  has 
tended  to  impair,  as  a consequence,  the  missionary  activity  of 
the  churches  which  have  embraced  its  tenets. 

8.  What  is  that  chronological  series? 

We  are  taught,  positively,  that  we  shall  not  know  times  or 
seasons  which  the  Father  hath  set  within  His  own 
authority.  Negatively,  we  are  instructed  : 

(1)  That  this  gospel  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  the 
Matt.  xxiv.  'whole  world  for  a testimony  unto  all  the  nations  ; 

14-  and  then  shall  the  end  come^  but  not  till  then. 

(2)  That  the  Jewish  people  will  be  converted  after  the  in- 
gathering of  the  heathen,  and  be  a great  revival  of  Christianity  : 
Rom.  xi.  25.  it  is  the  mystery,  that  a hardening  in  part  hath  he- 
Rom.  xi.  15.  fallen  Israel^  until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be 
come  in. 

(3)  That  this  revival  of  Christendom,  life  prom  the  dead., 
will  be  a universal  millennial  diffusion  of  the  gospel,  in  com- 
parison of  which  the  previous  state  of  the  Christian  world  may 
be  figuratively  described  as  death. 

(4)  That  a final  apostasy,  the  last  appearance  of  the  spirit 

2 Thess  i 8 antichrist  in  the  person  of  one  yet  unknown 
2 ess.i.  . must  precede  the  coming  of  the  Lord. 

9.  But  are  there  not  some  passages  which  strongly  plead 

for  a pre-millennial  advent  ? 

There  are  some  : there  is  one  especially  in  the  Apocalypse 
which,  if  interpreted  literally,  and  not  compared  with 
ev.  XX.  other  scriptures,  would  be  decisive. 

10.  How  is  that  passage  to  be  interpreted? 

In  harmony  (i)  with  the  symbolical  character  of  the  whole 
book  ; (2)  with  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord  Himself,  Who,  in  one 
John  V.  28,  and  the  same  passage,  speaks  of  a spiritual  and  of  a 
^9*  physical  resurrection  ; (3)  with  the  current  of  the 

entire  New  Testament,  which  speaks  of  one  coming  of  the 
Saviour  for  the  resurrection  and  judgment  of  men  and  the 
redemption  of  His  people. 


Resurrection  and  Judgment. 


371 


II. 

'Slesttrrccfion. 

1.  In  what  way  is  the  resurrection  treated  in  the  New 

Testament  ? 

It  is  one  of  the  things  which  are  made  subjects  of  special 
revelation ; both  our  Lord  and  His  apostles  introduce  it  as 
a new  and  final  mystery.  As  a mystery  : therefore,  first,  it 
had  been  partially  made  known  ; and,  secondly,  it  was  fully 
and,  so  far  as  the  human  mind  can  now  receive  it,  perfectly 
revealed. 

2.  But  was  it  not  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament  ? 

Many  passages  are  found  which  in  the  light  of  the  New 
declare  the  doctrine  ; and  some  which  are  shown  to  isa.  xxvi.  19. 
have  contained  preintimations  of  it  : such  as  that  Hoseaxiii. 
with  which  Jesus  rebuked  the  Sadducees.  But  Daniel  Luke  xx.  37, 
has  more  than  a germ  : Many  of  them  that  sleep  in  pin.  xii.  2. 
the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake. 

3.  What  was  the  current  opinion  in  our  Lord’s  age? 

The  Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees  were  divided  on  this  as 
on  other  subjects  : the  former  were  appealed  to  by  ^ 

the  apostle  Paul  as  believers  in  the  resurrection,  -s. 

And  Martha  expressed  in  the  most  confident  manner 
an  explicit  faith. 

4.  How  is  it  stamped  as  a new  revelation  ? 

The  Redeemer  introduced  it  as  a special  wonder  of  His 
teaching  ; and  St.  Paul  as  a mystery  : both  the  ^ 
marvel  and  the  mystery  referring  to  the  fuller  reve-  ’ 

lations  both  of  the  Master  and  of  His  servant.  iCor.xv.  51. 

6.  What  are  the  specific  elements  of  the  Christian  doctrine  ? 

Its  connection  with  the  Person  and  work  of  Christ;  with 
the  universal  judgment  : and  with  the  perfect  glorification  of 
the  whole  man  in  Christ. 

§ 1.  ©ttist  anil  tte  iJleaurrfcti'ott. 

1,  How  is  this  connection  viewed? 

The  resurrection  is  a fruit  of  the  Redeemer's  atonement ; 


372 


The  Last  Things. 


an  act  of  His  mediatorial  authority  ; and  specially  a privilege 
of  union  with  Himself. 


2.  What  is  its  relation  to  the  atonement? 

By  His  death  the  Redeemer  ransomed  the  whole  nature  of 
man.  Death  ruled  over  Him  as  the  representative  of  human 
sin  ; when  He  rose  it  was  proved  that  death  7io 
Romixiv.  9.  more  hath  dominion  over  Him  (/cvptcwct),  but  that  He 
2 iim.  1. 10.  Lord  both  of  the  dead  and  the  livmg  {KvpLeva-y), 

He  abolished  death  at  all  points, 

3.  And  what  to  His  mediatorial  authority  ? 

(1)  Of  His  Divine-human  Person  He  said  : All  authority 
...  hath  been  given  tmto  Me  in  heave^i  and  on  eai'th, 

xxviii*  o 

18.'  ‘ The  raising  of  the  dead  is  one  exercise  of  that  power  : 

John  V.  28.  to7ubs  shall  hear  His  voice, 

(2)  The  resurrection  of  all  men  is  bound  up  with  the  final 

judgment,  the  last  display  of  His  authority  : Because 
John  V.  27.  of  man  He  rais^th  men  to  judge  them. 

(3)  But  this  resurrection  is  not  to  be  limited  to  the 
John  V.  21.  “[3Q(^y  . Lie  qidckeneth  ivhom  He  will, 

(4)  On  the  evening  of  the  day  of  His  own  resurrection 

our  Lord  assumed  His  power.  He  breathed  on  them,,  and  saith 
John  XX.  22.  unto  them,,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost : the  same  word, 
'Gen.  ii.  7.  iv€(l>vo-r](r€,  which  records  the  first  gift  of  life  to  man 

Whatever  other  meaning  these  words  have,  they  mean  the  im- 
partation  of  the  resurrection  life. 

(5)  St.  Paul  uses  the  most  emphatic  word  possible  to 
express  the  mediatorial  authority  exerted  in  the  resurrection  : 

According  to  the  working  ivhereby  He  is  able  even 
Phil.  111.  21.  subject  all  things  unto  Himself  {yiroTa^at). 


4.  And  what  is  its  special  relation  to  union  with  Himself? 

The  strain  of  New  Testament  teaching  makes  this  very 
prominent.  As  the  eternal  Son  hath  life  in  Himself  so  the 
Tohnv  26  incarnate  Son  says,  I am  the  resurrection  and  the  life,, 
John  xi. "25,  to  man.  This  is  the  most  emphatic  instance  of  the 
I AM.  By  His  union  with  our  race  mankind  has  re 
ceived  the  virtue  of  the  general  resurrection. 


Resurrection  and  Judgment. 


373 


5.  How  is  this  more  particularly  related  to  His  people  ? 

Jesus  is  the  source,  the  pledge -and  the  pattern  of  their 
resurrection. 

6.  In  what  sense  is  He  its  source  ? 

The  union  of  believers  with  their  Head  by  faith  makes 
His  resurrection  theirs  : they  know  now  and  shall  ... 
hereafter  know  the  power  of  His  resurrection^  ^ .m.  lo. 

7.  In  what  sense  is  He  the  pledge  of  this  ? 

It  is  enough  to  hear,  Because  I live  ye  shall  live  also. 
The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  universal  pledge  ; and  St.  ^iv.  ig. 
Paul  bids  us  remember  that  our  mortal  bodies  shall  foor^xv  20 
be  quickened  because  of  His  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  Rom.’vili. 
you.  Christ  is  the  Firstfruits  of  them  that  are  asleep  ; ^3- 

and  we  have  the  firstfruits  of  the  Spirit',  the  word  aarapyji  is 
expressly  used  of  both. 

8.  And  in  what  sense  the  pattern  ? 

(i)  Our  Lord  saw  no  corruption,,  either  of  body  or  of 
spirit  : that  marks  a limitation  ; He  is  not  at  all 
points  the  pattern  either  of  our  spiritual  resurrection 
or  of  our  physical.  (2)  But  as  He  is  the  exemplar  of  our  perfect 
spiritual  life,  so  is  He  the  exemplar  of  our  bodily  ... 
glorification  : we  are  for eor darned  to  be  conformed  29/ 
to  the  image  of  His  Son  ; Who  shall  fashion  anew  the 
body  of  OUR  humiliation^  that  it  may  be  conformed  to  the  body 
of  His  glory. 


§ 2.  iJleaurrettton  of 

1.  What  are  the  leading  ideas  in  the  doctrine? 

They  are  three  : the  rising  again  of  man  in  his  integrity  ; 
the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  in  order  to  glorification  ; and  the 
raising  of  the  dead  generally.  All  these  are  used  in  their 
several  relations. 

2.  How  is  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  referred  to  ? 

Only  as  the  raising  by  Divine  power  of  a spiritual  body, 
the  organ  of  the  spirit  becoming  a soul  again. 


374 


The  Last  Things, 


3.  What  terms  are  used  for  the  change  ? 

(i)  As  to  the  Divine  operation,  it  is  called  a re-construct 
ing  change : Who  shall  fashion  anew  the  body  of  our  humilia' 
Phil  iii.  21.  effect,  it  is  such  a change  as 

iCo’r.xv.53,  has  no  resemblance  on  earth,  though  St.  Paul  rebukes 
unbelief  by  analogies  : the  result  is  the  appearing  of 
the  spirit  in  a body  of  incorruption  and  of  immortality,,  which 
is  no  longer  natural^  as  related  to  sensible  things,  but  spiritual. 

4.  Is  the  same  term  used  for  change  without  death? 

No  : one  quite  different.  We  shall  be  changed : that  is, 
the  last  generation,  alive  at  the  Lord's  coming,  will  not 
I Cor  XV  52  ^ fashioning  anew,  but  such  a transformation 

Matt.  xvii.2.  as  the  Lord  underwent  at  the  mount.  But  the  result 
Phil. 111. 21.  same;  for  the  dead  will  be  fashioned 

anew  in  order  to  be  conformed  to  the  body  of  His  glory, 

5.  Does  the  raising  of  the  dead  introduce  another  idea? 

It  lays  the  emphasis  rather  upon  the  return  of  the  whole 
personality  to  life  ; and  this  is  the  general  strain  of  scripture. 
Luke XX. 37,  our  Lord’s  one  cardinal  text  is  the  example: 

38-  Now  that  the  dead  are  raised.  For  all  live  unto  Him. 

6.  What  light  is  shed  on  the  nature  of  the  resurrection 

body? 

None  : beyond  this,  that  it  will  be,  (i)  negatively,  mortal 
no  longer  ; and  (2)  positively,  spiritual,  the  organ  of  the  spirit 
in  a spiritual  world. 


§ 3. 

1.  What  have  been  the  expectations  of  mankind  generally? 

Outside  of  revelation  there  is  no  evidence  that  the 
resurrection  was  ever  a clearly  defined  anticipation  among 
men  : though  the  treatment  of  the  bodies  of  the  dead,  especially 
among  the  ancient  Egyptians,  is  full  of  suggestion. 

2.  Did  later  Judaism  entertain  this  faith? 

The  apocryphal  books  prove  that  it  was  accepted  : and 
the  New  Testament  assumes  a general  belief  among  the  Jews. 


Resurrection  and  Judgment. 


375 


3.  How  did  speculation  in  the  early  church  take  shape? 

The  Gnostic  sects  asserted  that  the  resurrection  is  past 
already  : one  portion  of  the  early  church,  in  stern 
opposition  to  them,  emphasised  the  literal  rising  of  * • 

the  flesh,  and  another  adhered  to  the  more  spiritual  view.  The 
early  creeds  were  divided  between  “the  resurrection  of  the 
FLESH  ” and  “ the  resurrection  of  the  body.^' 

4.  What  was  the  current  of  mediaeval  thought? 

The  majority  of  the  schoolmen  adopted  the  most  literal 
interpretation  : the  precise  resurrection  of  the  last  edition  of 
the  body  as  committed  to  the  grave.  Their  minor  subtleties 
were  endless  ; one  of  them,  however,  having  had  a long  vitality, 
that  all  the  saints  will  rise  after  the  model  of  our  Saviour’s 
perfect  manhood,  as  in  the  thirtieth  year. 

6.  On  what  theory  were  the  reformation  formulas  constructed  ? 

With  a clearer  reconciliation  of  the  literal  and  spiritual 
elements  of  the  doctrine  than  had  been  attained  before.  The 
Lutherans,  however,  connected  with  it  their  fundamental  idea  ot 
the  impartation  through  the  eucharist  of  the  glorified  corporeity 
of  our  Lord  : His  spiritual  body  having  a mystical  relation 
both  to  the  intermediate  body  and  to  that  of  the  resurrection. 

0.  What  have  been  the  more  modern  speculations? 

Two  points  have  been  made  the  centres  of  theorising. 

(1)  The  supposed  necessity  that  the  body,  dissolved  in  the 
earth,  should  be  reconstructed,  has  led  to  much  straining  of 
exposition  and  disregard  of  physical  facts. 

(2)  The  theory  of  a germ  retained  in  the  general  dis- 
solution has  developed  in  various  ways  : that  germ  has  been 
supposed  to  be  dormant  till  the  resurrection,  or  to  be  half 
glorified  in  the  ethereal  body  of  the  intermediate  state. 

7.  What  may  be  said  of  these  speculations  ? 

That  they  are  as  needless  as  they  are  useless  : the  man, 
common  to  soul  and  body,  will  be  the  same ; but.  as  his 
spiritual  life  is  a new  creation,  being  the  Son  of  God  within 
him,  so  his  body  will  be  a new  creation  also. 


376 


The  Last  Things. 


8.  What  may  be  said  as  to  the  whole  subject? 

All  may  be  summed  up  in  the  one  great  lesson,  thrice  re- 
corded, of  our  Lord  concerning  it. 

(ij  He  distinguishes  between  the  sons  of  this  worlds 
the  sons  of  the  resurrection^  who  are  the  sons  of  God  : even  as  St. 
Luke  XX  Paul  speaks  of  his  own  expectation  of  the  resurrection 
36.  ‘ ’ from  the  dead^  from  among  the  rest  of  the  dead  who 

Phil.  111.  II. 

(2)  He  says  that  they  are  equal  unto  the  angels : with 
Luke  XX.  36.  spiritual  bodies  of  which  we  have  now  no  conception. 

(3)  He  proves  that  the  dead  are  raised  by  shewing  that 
the  Lord  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead  but  of  the  living ; and  that, 
Luke  XX.  37,  as  He  is  the  God  of  Abraham^  and  the  God  of  Isaac ^ 

38-  and  the  God  of  Jacoby — of  each  patriarch  distinctly, 

— each  of  them  in  his  personal  integrity  is  already  counted  as 
having  risen. 

(4)  Hence,  there  is  an  identity  of  the  persons,  but  a dif- 
Lukexx.  34,  ference  of  the  bodies  as  great  as  the  difference  of  this 

35-  world  and  that  world. 


III. 

§it6gmcnf. 

§ 1.  fuDge. 

1.  What  is  the  final  teaching  of  scripture  as  to  the  Judge? 

(i)  That  the  Father  hath  given  all  judgment  unto  the  So7t^ 
or  the  Holy  Trinity  to  the  God-man  ; (2)  while  still  it  remains 
John  V.  22.  true  that  God  is  the  Judge  of  all,  (3)  The  recon- 
Heb.  xii.  23.  ciliation  of  these  is  that  the  Son  of  man,  the  Judge, 
is  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  Who  alone  could  be  capable  of  such 
a commission. 

2.  Has  the  Lord’s  human  nature  a special  relation  to  this 

office  ? 

The  Lord  indicates  this  by  adding,  Because  He  is  the  Son 
of  man.  It  is  not  so  much,  however,  because  of  His  special 
human  tenderness,  as  because  the  destinies  of  men  are 
Jo  n V.  27.  entirely  committed  to  His  hands. 


Resurrection  and  Judgment. 


377 


3 What  is  the  special  relation  of  the  judgment  to  the 
Lord’s  own  person? 

(1)  He  Himself  again  connects  with  it,  That  all  may 
honour  the  Son  : this  being  His  own  self-assertion  ; . , 

and  in  harmony  with  His  other  solitary  reference  to  Matt.  xxv. 
the  glory  of  His  royal  majesty,  The  Son  of  7nan  31.34- 
shall  come  in  His  glory  and  shall  sit  on  the  throne  of  His  glory. 
Then  shall  the  King  say  ! 

(2)  Hence  the  abundant  descriptions  of  the  dread  circum- 
stantials of  the  judgment  : which  are  introduced  to  elevate 
our  thoughts  and  impress  them ; and  also  to  depict  and  glorify 
the  majesty  of  the  Judge. 

4.  What  is  its  relation  to  His  redeeming  work  ? 

(1)  The  universal  judgment  will  be  the  vindication  of  the 
atonement  : we  read  of  the  wrath  o/the  Lamb.  The  Rev.  vi.  16. 
mediation  of  our  Lord  has  given  a new  character  to  Heb.  x.  26. 
sin  and  a new  terror  to  its  condemnation. 

(2)  It  will  display  the  righteousness  of  the  moral  govern- 
ment of  the  world,  which  has  from  the  beginning  of  human 
sin  been  conducted  on  the  redemption  as  its  basis. 

(3)  It  will  be  the  final  expression  of  its  results.  He  will 
appear  a second  time  apart  from  sin^  without  atone- 

merit  for  the  rejected,  for  them  that  wait  Jor  Him  ® • 

unto  salvation. 

6.  What  is  the  deep  significance  of  the  second  point? 

The  multitudes  of  mankind  have  been  dealt  with  as 
redeemed  throughout  all  their  history  ; this  has  been  the 
secret  of  the  Spirit’s  work  outside  of  revelation  as  well  as 
within  it ; and  they  will  be  judged  with  reference  to  that 
government.  The  only  time  that  our  Lord  calls  Matt.  xxv. 
Himself  the  So7i  of  man  who  comes  in  His  glory ^ is  31,32. 
when  He  speaks  of  His  being  the  Judge  of  all  the  nations.  St. 
Paul  says  that  the  secrets  of  men — as  such — will  be 
judged  according  to  my  gospel^  hy  Jesus  Christ.  But 
we  cannot  penetrate  beyond.  The  same  apostle,  with  one 
aspect  of  the  same  subject  in  his  mind,  cries,  and  we  should 
humbly  join  him  : O the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of 
the  wisdom  and  the  knowledge  of  God!  how  un~ 
searchable  are  His  judgments.^  and  His  ways  past  tracing  out 


378 


The  Last  Things. 


§ 2.  f uJgfij. 

1.  What  is  the  testimony  as  to  the  extent  of  the  judgment? 

ActT’xvii^^i  That  there  will  be  one  gathering  of  men^  of  all 
Rom.  xiv.  ’ men^  of  the  world : of  all  nations^  of  the  earthy  the 
Matt.  XXV.  quick  and  the  dead^  of  small  and  great : the  first  and 
rIv  XX  12  only  congregation  of  mankind. 

2.  What  testimony  is  given  to  its  individuality  ? 

In  the  Old  Testament  we  read,  God  will  bring  thee  into 
iudgment  ; in  the  New,  Who  will  re7ider  to  every  man  accord- 
Eccies.  xi.g.  i^i^  deeds.  The  conscience,  which  is  the  in- 

Rom.  ii.  6.  dividual  internal  judgment  that  now  is,  confirms  this 
testimony  to  the  universal  external  judgment  that  will  be. 

3.  But  are  the  redeemed  and  saved  to  he  judged? 

(1)  It  may  be  said  that  the  believer  undergoes  his  ordeal 
in  the  present  life ; that  he  judges  himself  that  he  may  not  be 
judged  ; that  he  does  not  come  into  judgment.^  hut  hath  passed 

from  death  wito  life ; that  at  the  great  day  he  will 
2Cor^v.io.  only  be  7nade  manifest.  Our  common  thought  is 
I Cor.  VI.  2.  the  saints  receive  their  verdict  when  they  enter 

the  Lord’s  presence  in  death  ; and  that  they  rather  judge  the 
world  with  Christ  than  are  judged  by  Him. 

(2)  But  the  most  emphatic  appeals  to  a future  judgment 
are  addressed  to  believers  ; and  all  that  has  been  said  must  be 
made  consistent  with  the  reality  of  their  ordeal.  In  fact,  the 
sacred  mystery  of  the  resurrection  will  be  this,  that,  not  only  shall 
we  rise  again,  but  all  the  actions  of  our  life  rise  again  with  us. 

4.  How  is  any  judgment  of  Christians  consistent  with  their 

salvation  ? 

Judgment  in  their  case  means  separation.  And  much  of 
that  separation  is  represented  as  between  true  and  false  Chris- 
tians. Moreover,  so  far  as  judgment  means  requital  of  the 
past,  it  will  be  in  their  case  the  allotment  of  their  appropriate 
sphere,  and  the  due  reward  of  their  good  works. 

§ 3.  E\)t  ^printiples  ti?  h3tict  ^uligment  bJi'll  tc  ©ontucteU. 

1.  What  principles  will  guide  the  final  judgment  ? 

(i)  Generally,  and  with  reference  to  the  Judge,  it  must 


Resurrection  and  Judgment. 


379 


always  be  remembered  that  //le  Judge  of  all  the  earth  will  do 
right : the  judgment  will  be  the  final  manifestation 
of  that  law  which  holy  ^ and  just  and  good.  In  the  25! 
light  of  this  truth  only  can  we  approach  the  awful 
mysteries  of  the  judgment-seat. 

(2)  But,  particularly,  and  as  to  the  judged,  we  are  taught 
that  judgment  will  be  regulated  by  certain  fixed  principles. 


2.  In  what  sense  will  the  measure  of  privilege  be  a test  ? 

Nothing  is  more  clearly  revealed  than  that  the  judgment 
will  take  account  of  the  degree  of  light  and  opportunity  given 
in  probation.  For  some  it  will  be  more  tolerable 
than  for  others. 


Matt.  xi.  24. 


3.  How  are  faith  and  works  connected  with  the  final  judg- 

ment ? 

This  double  test  will  be  applied  to  Christians  in  particular: 

(1)  The  work  of  faith  unites  them:  the  whole  ^ . 

character  and  life  are  made  up  of  these  as  cause  and  ^ ess.  1.3. 
effect. 

(2)  They  must  be  viewed  separately.  On  the  one  hand, 
the  final  question  will  be  concerning  faith  in  Jesus  or  rejection 

•of  Him.  But,  on  the  other,  good  works  will  be  jas.  n.  is. 
evidence  of  the  reality  of  faith,  and  evil  works  of  the  Matt,  xii.37. 
reality  of  unbelief. 

4.  But  do  not  good  works  enter  very  largely  into  every  fore- 

announcement ? 

They  do  appear  prominent  in  both  Testaments  : so  pro- 
minent that,  however  much  it  heightens  the  wonder  of  the 
doctrine,  we  must  believe  that  the  Judge  will  not  Rev.xxii.12. 
only  render  to  each  man  according  as  his  work  is^ 
but  also  to  all  according  to  their  works. 

5.  Wbat  will  be  the  self-revelation  of  the  judgment? 

That  final  conviction  which  will  cause  all  the  condemned 
of  God  to  condemn  themselves  ; and  give  to  the 
accepted  boldness  in  the  day  of  judgment  ijohmv.17. 

6.  How  is  condemnation  related  to  judgment? 

Judgment  (/cptcns)  means  separation  proceeding  by  test  of 
character  ; condemnation  (/caTciKptcrt?),  separation  to  punish- 
ment. As  condemnation  is  universal,  and  all  are  separated  to 
17 


380 


The  Last  Things. 


condemnation  before  they  are  separated  to  life,  the  two  words 
have  to  a great  extent  the  same  meaning. 

7.  What  is  the  final  condemnation? 

It  is  the  sentence,  Depart  from  Me^  ye  cursed^  into  the 
Matt.  XXV.  eternal  fire  which  is  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his 

Mati.  XXV.  (angels.  And  this  is  explained  by  the  Judge  Him- 
46.  self : These  shall  go  away  into  eternal  punishment. 

8.  How  is  this  sentence  to  be  analysed  ? 

(1)  Its  stress  is  on  the  severance  from  the  Lord  ; the 
punishment  of  sin  is,  like  sin  itself,  separation  from  God. 

(2)  But  the  conscious  suffering  is  added  : expressed  by  a 
fearful  figure  which  must  not  be  explained  away. 

(3)  Its  eternal  continuance  is  made  emphatic  : it  is  eternal 
as  the  life  of  the  righteous  is,  and  it  is  shared  with  the  devil 
and  his  angels,  for  whom  there  is  no  redemption. 

9.  In  what  sense  will  the  final  judgment  be  confirmation  of 

the  past  ? 

Both  as  to  the  saved  and  the  lost  the  last  decree  will  be  a 
sentence  already  expected  : the  latter  have  a certain  fearful 
Heb  X 27  expectation  of  judgment^  and  the  former  already  hath 
John  iii.  36,  eternal  life^  and  is  not  judged.  Though  the  resurrec- 
tion  is  not  past  already,  the  judgment  in  a certain 

sense  is. 


§ 4.  ?^{j5tor(tal : ®ontrober»p. 

1.  Has  the  final  judgment  appeared  in  the  religions  of  man- 

kind? 

In  some  form  almost  universally;  but  without  any  re- 
ference to  a great  determinate  period. 

2.  What  was  the  later  Jewish  faith? 

It  was  indeterminate  : save  that  the  Messiah  was  expected 
to  come  as  a judge  to  vindicate  His  own  people  and  condemn 
the  nations  outside  of  Judaism. 

3.  How  has  Christian  opinion  varied? 

The  deep  general  consent  of  the  church  has  been  given  to 


Resurrection  and  Judgment. 


381 


the  doctrine  already  laid  down.  But  the  germs  of  two  opposite 
errors  early  appeared  ; and  also  tendencies  to  adopt  mediating 
theories  of  alleviation. 

4.  What  are  the  opposite  errors? 

They  are  called  in  modern  language  Universalism  and 
Annihilationism. 


23:nibmaU'sm  anU  ^nniTidationism. 

6.  How  do  they  deal  with  the  results  of  the  general  judgment  ? 

(1)  The  former  denies  that  there  will  be  an  eternal 
separation  of  good  and  evil  : hence  the  essential  idea  of  judg- 
ment is  taken  away  ; for  all  souls  are  to  be  restored. 

(2)  The  latter  denies  that  there  will  be  a separation  of 
two  permanent  classes  ; for  the  condemnation  is  supposed  to 
be  sooner  or  later  the  loss  of  existence. 

(3)  They  have,  however,  certain  common  principles,  and 
points  in  which  they  essentially  differ. 

6.  What  principles  are  common  to  these  two  opinions  ? 

They  alike  argue  (i)  for  the  removal  of  all  evil  from  the 
universe  ; (2)  for  the  impossibility  of  reconciling  unceasing 
punishment  with  the  Divine  perfections  ; {3)  that  the  sin  of  a 
finite  creature  cannot  be  punished  infinitely  ; (4)  that  the 
design  of  redemption  is  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil  and 
abolish  all  the  effects  of  sin. 

7.  Do  they  really  agree  on  all  these  points  ? 

Yes:  but  they  reach  the  same  conclusion  from  different 
premises  ; and  the  comparison  of  these  tends  at  once  to  explain 
the  theories  and  to  refute  them. 

8.  How  may  we  answer  their  common  demand  that  evil 

must  he  extinguished  ? 

While  the  two  doctrines  certainly  provide  for  the 
abolition  of  evil,  and  thus  give  a certain  relief  to  the  mind, 
neither  of  them  explains  away  the  fact  that  evil  has  existed. 
It  is  at  least  as  easy  to  accept  the  continuance  of  evil  as  its 
beginning  : there  is  no  argument  against  either. 


382 


The  Last  Things. 


9.  What  can  be  said  as  to  their  second  common  principle? 

(1)  This  plausible  argument  against  the  doctrine  of  scrip- 
ture is  inconsistently  urged  by  the  annihilationist,  since  he 
does  make  the  punishment  eternal  in  the  most  absolute 
sense;  and  by  the  restorationist,  since  he  allows  that  the 
threatening  of  endless  doom  is  used  to  prevent  that  doom 
itself. 

(2)  More  directly,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  entire 
scheme  of  probation  is  based  upon  the  eternal  issues  of  time  ; 
and  that  all  we  know  of  the  Divine  dealings  with  man  in  this 
life  teaches  that  the  results  of  evil  swell  into  endless  dispro- 
portion to  the  apparent  cause. 

10.  But  they  appeal  to  the  Divine  attributes  against  the 

permanence  of  suffering  ? 

(1)  The  love  and  power  of  God  are  relied  on  by  both  to 
put  an  end  to  the  causes  of  suffering  ; but  the  argument  loses 
all  its  power  in  the  presence  of  the  fact  that  sorrow  has  been 
permitted  to  enter. 

(2)  The  attributes  of  God  are  best  explained  and  best 
vindicated  by  Himself : He  never  in  revelation  appeals  to  either 
His  love  or  His  power  as  demanding  the  cessation  of  evil  and 
suffering. 

11.  Is  this  true?  Do  not  many  sayings  declare  that  the  end 

of  the  atonement  is  the  abolition  of  evil  ? 

Not  one  passage  can  be  quoted  which  fairly  bears  that 
construction, 

(1)  The  design  of  redemption  is  to  put  away  sin ^ to  destroy 
the  works  of  the  devil^  and  that  the  world  shoidd  be  saved 

1.  . ^ throuTrh  Him,  But  we  see  that  the  words  mean,  when 

I John  iii.  8.  examined  in  their  context,  to  put  away  m a Levitical 
John  111.  17.  sense  by  atonement,  and  to  destroy  in  the  sense  of 
overturning  the  power  of  Satan. 

(2)  The  result  is  that  God  may  he  all  in  all : God  without 
a mediator  in  all  the  saved,  of  whom  alone  the  chapter  speaks. 
I Cor.  XV.  28.  The  Mediator  will  have  put  down or  abolished.^  all 
I Cor.  XV.  24.  yiii^  and  all  authority  and  power  : the  term  here  used 
is  inconsistent  with  simple  destruction,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
with  the  universal  saving  complacency  of  God,  on  the  other. 


Resurrection  and  Judgment. 


383 


(3)  Again,  it  is  said  concerning  the  design  and  the  issue, 
that  Christ’s  work  is  the  reconciling  by  God  of  all  coi.  i.  20. 
things  unto  Himself^  or  to  sum  up  all  things  in  Christ.^ 
the  things  in  the  heavens^  and  the  things  upon  the  earth.  Heaven 
and  earth  are  brought  into  harmony  again  : not  by  the  salva- 
tion of  evil  spirits,  for  not  of  angels  doth  He  take  hold,  .. 
and  He  is  not  their  head.  Peace  is  reestablished  in  ® • 

the  universe. 

12.  Where  do  the  theories  essentially  differ? 

(i)  As  to  the  design  of  retributive  judgment;  as  to  the 
nature  of  probation  ; as  to  the  natural  immortality  of  man  ; 
and  especially  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  terms  wrath,  life,  death, 
destruction.  (2)  Their  mutual  differences  are  the  furtherance 
of  the  truth  which  is  opposed  to  both. 

13.  How  do  they  differ  as  to  retributive  judgment? 

One  theory  says  that  all  punishment  is  a vindication  of 
God^s  law,  even  to  the  destruction  of  the  sinning  soul  ; the 
other  says  that  all  punishment  is  chastisement  or  discipline  for 
final  salvation.  But  punishment  (/cdAacrts)  is  always  dis- 
tinguished from  chastisement  (Trat^eta)  ; and  both  terms  re- 
quire the  existence  of  the  subject  that  feels  them. 

14.  How  as  to  the  nature  of  probation  ? 

The  one  affirms  that  the  end  of  the  probation  is  the  failure 
of  God,  who  puts  out  of  being  that  which  is  reprobate;  the  other 
denies  the  essence  of  probation,  by  introducing  an  almighty 
power  that  rescues  the  leprobate.  But  the  solemn 
word  is  that  whatsoever  a man  soweth  that  shall  he 
also  reap. 

15.  How  as  to  natural  immortality? 

They  fundamentally  differ  ; and  the  truth  is  in  neither. 

(1)  The  annihilationists  assert  that  man  was  made  a living 
soul  only ; and  that  Christ  came  that  believers  in  ^ cor.  xv. 
Him  might  have  immortality.  But  man  was  made  ^46- .. 

in  the  image  of  God  as  well  as  a living  soul ; and  Gen! 
Christ  zame  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  losf 
and  not  to  give  them  another  human  nature. 

(2)  The  universalists  imply,  whether  they  assert  it  or  not, 


384 


The  Last  Things. 


that  immortality  is  the  gift  from  God  to  all  His  intelligent 
creatures  of  life  in  Him,  and  that  in  some  way  it  must  be 
preserved  to  them  for  ever : forgetting  that  immortality  is  not 
life  IN  God  necessarily.  But  this  leads  to  the  next  very  im- 
portant question,  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  leading  terms. 

16.  And  what  is  their  difference  here  ? 

(1)  One  system  of  doctrine  confounds  life  with  existence 
and  death  with  annihilation  ; whereas  the  scripture  carefully 

distinguishes  these  : the  existing  man  hath  the  life 

1 John  V.  12.  hath  not  the  life  just  as  he  hath  the  Son  or  hath  not 
the  Son  of  God,  It  confounds  destruction,  or  the  being  lost, 

with  annihilation  ; whereas  the  strongest  word  ever 
u exv.  32.  applied  to  a living  soul  who  was  lost  and  is 

found  (d7ToXwXw9  ^v). 

(2)  The  other  system  deals  with  the  same  terms  in  a way 

equally  unscriptural.  It  denies  the  awful  meaning  both  of 
death  and  destruction,  and  the  blessed  peculiarity  of  life  and 
salvation.  As  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son  refutes  the 
theory  that  being  lost  is  being  put  out  of  being,  so  the  dark 
word  concerning  Judas  refutes  the  notion  that  there  is  no  de- 
johnxvii  struction  : he  was  the  son  of  perdition  (aTrcoXetag),  and 
^ 12.  ‘ of  him  it  was  said,  Good  were  it  for  that  man  if  he 

Markxiv.2i.  had  not  been  bom. 

17.  What  are  the  intermediate  theories  ? 

Methods  of  interpreting  the  judgment  which  have  aimed 
to  soften  the  harshness  of  what  St.  Paul  calls  the  fear  of  the 
Lord.  Some  of  them  have  been  unscriptural,  and 

2 or.  V.  II.  hav^e  a certain  measure  of  scriptural  support. 

18.  Of  which  may  the  former  be  said  ? 

(1)  Of  those  which  in  every  age  have  speculated  as  to  a 
final  economy  of  grace  superseding  the  atonement,  and  really 
resting  on  the  intercession  of  Christ  apart  from  His  redeeming 
passion.  Such  a separation  has  no  warrant. 

(2)  Of  those  which  press  too  far  the  distinction  between 
the  judgment  of  loss  (damni,  whence  the  term  damnation), 
and  the  judgment  of  penal  suffering  : making  the  sentence  of 


Resurrection  and  Judgment. 


3S5 


exclusion  from  God’s  presence  one  to  which  the  lost  submit  in 
despair. 

(3)  Of  those  which  divide  human  nature  in  the  endur- 
ance of  the  sentence  : some  regarding  the  spirit  as  lost,  and 
the  sufferer  reduced  to  a merely  animal  existence  ; some  sup- 
posing that  the  body  will  be  suppressed,  and  the  spirit  therefore 
endure  only  disembodied  sufferings. 

(4)  Of  those  which  regard  the  intermediate  state  as  a 
sphere  of  such  possibilities  of  merciful  discipline  as  would 
really  transfer  to  it  the  true,  or  at  least  the  most  abundant 
reign  of  grace. 

19.  Of  which  may  the  latter  be  said  ? 

Of  all  those  which  dwell  on  the  few  stripes  and  the  many 
stripes ; on  the  Divine  consideration  of  the  oppor- 
tunities men  have  had  ; on  the  Saviour’s  testimony 
concerning  His  imputation  of  righteousness  to  faith 
which  never  knew  Him  ; on  the  special  emphasis 
of  the  sin  unto  death;  on  the  assurance  that  all 
rebellion  will  be  suppressed  throughout  the  uni- 
verse ; and,  above  all,  on  the  eternal  truth  which 
accept,  that  the  Saviour  of  men  will  let  none  perish 
be  saved. 


386 


The  Last  Things. 


Chapter  III. 

Consummation  or  §n&  of  alt 

1.  In  what  sense  must  we  use  this  term  ? 

There  are  three  consummations  in  scripture  : the  end  of 
the  preparation  of  the  earth  for  man  ; the  end  of  the  pre- 
paration for  Christ  ; and  the  end  of  all  things.  Each  of  these 
ends  is  a new  beginning  : the  rcXcs  or  consummation  of  one 
scheme  is  the  or  origination  of  another. 

2.  What  reaches  its  consummation  or  end  with  the  judg- 

ment ? 

The  mediatorial  kingdom  and  the  saving  purpose  of  the 
Holy  Trinity  ; the  creation  which  becomes  a new  heaven 
and  earth  ; the  perfected  church  of  the  saints  glorified. 

3.  How  are  all  these  embraced  in  the  consummation  ? 

Because  so  far  as  the  history  of  mankind  is  concerned 
Rom.  xi.  36.  these  are  all  one  in  the  eternal  purpose  of  God  : /'or 
of  Him  ^ and  through  Him^  and  tmto  Him  are  all  things, 

§ 2.  Sating  ^^urpose. 

1.  How  may  it  be  said  that  the  purpose  of  salvation  will  be 

attained  ? 

(i)  Because  the  uniform  testimony  of  scripture  confirms 
the  first  principle  of  faith  in  God  : that  what  is  a Divine  pur- 
pose must  be  accomplished.  And  (2)  the  work  of  Christ  is 
always  spoken  of  as  an  eternal  design  accomplished  in  time. 

2.  Is  not  the  failure  to  save  all  men  a defeat  of  that  design  ? 

Silence  is  the  best  answer  here.  But  it  may  be  said  that 
man,  as  a race,  is  saved. 

3.  How  is  this  related  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ  P 

The  salvation  of  the  human  race  is  connected  with  the 
kingdom  in  two  ways  ; (i)  as  that  is  the  mediatorial  authority 


The  Consummation  or  End  of  all  Things.  387 


of  Christ  to  put  down  all  opposing  powers  ; and  (2)  as  it  is  the 
dominion  of  Christ  over  the  recovered  race.  In  both  these 
senses  its  consummation  will  be  its  end:  When  he  iCor.xv. 
shall  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  the  God  and  Father. 

4.  But  is  not  this  the  subjection  of  the  Son  also? 

The  Son  is  incarnate,  and,  as  the  incarnate  mediatorial 
Ruler,  shall  he  subjected  to  Him  that  did  subject  all  iCor.  xv.  28. 
things  unto  Him : that  is,  shall  officially  present  the  finished 
redemption,  while  still  eternally  the  subordinate  yet  coequal 
Son  : that  God  may  be  all  in  all, 

§ 2.  2Tt)e  Nebj  J^eaben  anb  lEarti^. 

1.  In  what  sense  is  this  a consummation  ? 

The  heaven  and  earth  that  now  is,  having  served  its  pur- 
pose, will  be  destroyed : that  is,  will  be  changed  into  a new 
sphere,  adapted  to  the  eternal  destinies  of  mankind.  The  ele- 
ments  shall  be  dissolved  with  fervent  heat^  and  the  2 Peter  iu. 
earth  and  the  works  that  are  therein  shall  be  burned 
up.  This  shall  be  by  reason  of  the  presence  of  the  day  of 
God ; and  We  look  for  new  heavens  and  a new  earth, 

2.  What  will  be  the  link  between  the  old  and  the  new  ? 

The  same  as  between  the  carnal  and  the  regenerate  spirit, 
the  natural  and  the  spiritual  body.  The  wonderful  works  of 
man  on  the  face  of  the  earth  will  perish  ; the  earth  itself,  as 
God’s  work,  will  be  the  same,  but  undergo  a transforming 
change  such  as  is  included  in  the  Lord’s  words : in  the  re- 
generation, Behold^  I create  new  heavens  and  a Matt.  xix. 
new  earthy  must  be  interpreted  in  harmony  with  isafixv.  17. 
this. 

3.  Is  this  doctrine  revealed  with  sufiB.cient  clearness  to  be 

thus  positively  spoken  of? 

It  is  declared  in  both  testaments  ; and  very  isa.  ixv.  17 
explicitly  : not  as  matter  of  prophecy  only,  but  for  “^5- 
practical  purposes. 

4.  What  purposes  are  these  ? 

To  teach  us  that  the  creation  of  God  has  a developing 
history  apart  from  man  ; that  this  earth,  however,  and  the 


388 


The  SpiriVs  Administration, 


heavens  over  it,  will  share  man^s  destiny  ; that  the  physical 
universe  is  bound  up  with  the  Divine  designs  ; and  that  the 
aPeteriii.  13.  inhabitants  of  the  present  world  should  so  live  as 
to  prepare  for  the  new  earthy  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness, 

6.  How  does  this  translation  by  fire  comport  with  science  ? 

As  to  the  fact  of  the  agency  of  fire,  science  is  more  than 
in  accord.  But  as  to  the  glorification  of  nature — its  being 
Rom.  viii.  21.  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the 
liberty  of  the  glory  of  the  children  of  God — it  has  nothing  to  say. 
A higher  agent  than  material  fire  will  accomplish  that. 

§ 3.  jperlettmg  of  t|)e 

1.  How  is  the  consummation  viewed  in  regard  to  the  race? 

The  saved  are  the  people  of  God  ; the  bride^  the  wife  of 
Rev.  xxi.  2,  3,  the  Lamb ; one  with  Christ  and  through  Him 
John  xvii.  21.  with  the  Holy  Trinity,  perfect  m one  for  ever  : the 
Eph.  i.  23.  fulness  of  Him  that  filleth  all  in  all.  This  is  the 
end  to  which  the  gradual  gathering  of  the  church  of  all  genera- 
tions has  tended. 

2.  Why  is  this  called  the  consummation  of  the  race? 

Because  it  is  the  end  of  the  mediatorial  history  of  man- 
kind. That  began  in  Paradise  ; and  it  ends  there.  The  nations 
Rev.  xxi.  24,10.  shall  walk  by  the  light  oi  the  temple,  which  is  the 
Rev.  xxh's!’^^*  tioly  city  Jerusalem^  and  have  right  to  come  to  the 
Phil.  iii.  19.  tree  of  life . The  unsaved  of  mankind  are  without, 
in  the  second  death  Whose  end  is  destruction : that  is 
their  end,  but  it  does  not  enter  into  the  consummation  as  we 
view  it. 

3.  Does  not  the  consummation  include  the  destinies  of  the 

individual  saints  ? 

Only  as  they  are  members  of  the  one  corporate  body.  But 
John  xvii.  21.  the  perfection  of  all  will  be  the  perfection  of  each. 

4.  What  are  more  particularly  the  characteristics  of  the 
1 Cor.  vi.  17.  eternal  state  of  the  blessed  ? 

(i)  Their  union  with  God  : that  they  also  may  be  one  in 
Us^  which  is  the  highest  aspiration  of  religion.  He  that  is 
joined  unto  the  Lord  is  one  spirit : this  faintly  expresses  what 


The  Consummation  or  End  of  all  Things.  389 


the  sanctified  and  perfected  soul  is  capable  of  enjoying  in  per- 
fect fellowship  with  the  Holy  Trinity. 

(2)  The  highest  perfection  of  created  nature:  released 
from  every  hindrance  and  restraint,  the  development  i Cor.  xiu. 
of  all  the  capacities  of  their  being  will  go  on  in  the 

broad  way,  narrow  no  longer,  to  infinity. 

(3)  Everlasting  worship  and  service  : wherein  the  grati- 

tude of  the  redeemed  will  find  its  eternal  sphere  for  the  mani- 
festation of  that  love  to  God  and  His  creatures  in  Him  which 
is  the  final  perfection  of  all  religion,  whether  on  earth  or  in 
heaven  : dyaTrrj  ovSiTrore  ttlittcl  LovE  NEVER  1 Cor.  xifl. 

FAILETH. 

To  Him  be  the  glory  for  ever. 


Amen# 


ujni  \mfwiii' 


t"  y 


-■}  ^ 


^ . 

I 


I 

►/ 


4 


\ 


V'mV 


.V  , 


